Customer Reviews

On Politics and the Art of Acting

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This short book by Arthur Miller is a delightful read for anyone interested in politics either as a participant or an observer. In short 100 pages, Miller covers the most recent presidents and compares their performance and success to their ability to act. Politics is all about perception and not about reality. And who can better translate the perception of feelings, beliefs and intentions but an artist who is an actor? It is known from the ancient philosophers like Aristotle that human beings are social beings that are ruled by social arts like acting. No human being can handle reality and it is the storytellers (liers/actors) that get our attention or fool us until they can disappear into their rabbit hole. Truly wonderful little book. Quick, entertaining and witty.

Arthur Miller has a good reason to write this book. He is an American with an understanding of politics. In addition, he is one of the premier playwright of the 20th century. In this book, Miller explores politics as an art form, the art of acting. In this non-partisan evaluation, Miller makes many intelligent observations.

In terms of acting, Miller observes that Ronald Reagan was the best actor among the Presidents. He is such a quality actor that he had trouble discriminating between his roles and reality. Clinton is listed as the second best performer for his poise which made people empathize with him. It should be no secret why these two are the most successful presidents of the last 30 years. It is not until Miller writes about FDR that Miller shows partisanism. While originally disliking Roosevelt, Miller sympathized with Herbert Hoover and the Republican Party in his youth. FDR is credited with bringing the country out of the depression. This changes Miller's opinion of democrats. My disagreement with Miller is in his statement that Roosevelt was not a great actor. The fact that FDR was able to hide his disability while leading the country through dark times shows strong acting skills.

Miller also was an insightful look at the 2000 election. It terms of substance, election 2000 was in no way like the Lincoln-Douglas deabates. Miller correctly asserts that the 2000 election became a question of who voters disliked the least. On camera, Al Gore looked robotic at times and in one particular incident snobbish. Gore became easier for many to dislike despite better qualifications. Miller evaluates Bush's increasing comfort level in front of the camera noticing that people still do not trust him because of poor acting skills.

I would have like to have seen Miller explore the performances of other recent Presidents. I don't think this would meet the overall point of the book. Miller's point is that politics is not about the most qualified or most intelligent candidate. It comes down to which candidate is looks better on camera or is the better actor. The product is just not as important as the packaging.

As Miller emphasizes in his essay, some of our best political leaders were excellent actors as well. Although, Reagan was the only actual actor elected as our president, many others have benefited from their skills as a thespian. During the presidential debates, one's countenance can be the deciding factor in the decision. Miller explained that on the outside, Reagan never seemed the least bit unsure of what he was saying. It was this talent that made him the best acting president. Miller also points out what bad acting skills can do for a president. In Einsenhower's case, his impromptu speeches and unprepared speaking style made him seem more like a bumbling comic than the actual intellectual he really was. During the Bush-Gore Debates, Miller commends Bush on his acting talent and criticizes Gore his attempts to try many different roles than the one he was most accustomed to. Miller has also stated that since Bush has been elected to office, his acting skills have improved dramatically. Just as an actor gains more confidence after reading positive reviews and is certain his work will be a success, Bush's confidence has also increased following his victory. Miller shows that politics comes hand-in-hand with acting and this witty work is truly something that should be read by any fan, or critic, of politics.

As Miller emphasizes in his essay, some of our best political leaders were excellent actors as well. Although, Reagan was the only actual actor elected as our president, many others have benefited from their skills as a thespian. During the presidential debates, one's countenance can be the deciding factor in the decision. Miller explained that on the outside, Reagan never seemed the least bit unsure of what he was saying. It was this talent that made him the best acting president. Miller also points out what bad acting skills can do for a president. In Einsenhower's case, his impromptu speeches and unprepared speaking style made him seem more like a bumbling comic than the actual intellectual he really was. During the Bush-Gore Debates, Miller commends Bush on his acting talent and criticizes Gore his attempts to try many different roles than the one he was most accustomed to. Miller has also stated that since Bush has been elected to office, his acting skills have improved dramatically. Just as an actor gains more confidence after reading positive reviews and is certain his work will be a success, Bush's confidence has also increased following his victory. Miller shows that politics comes hand-in-hand with acting and this witty work is truly something that should be read by any fan, or critic, of politics.

On a March evening at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington DC, in a packed auditorium, Arthur Miller, America's most distinguished living playwright, delivered the 2001 National Endowment for the Humantities JEFFERSON LECTURE IN THE HUMANITIES. Selection of the annual lecturer is the highest honor the federal government bestows for distinguished intellectual achievement in the humanities. The great author's observations and insights about the twin arts of politics and performance poured forth in a memorable address. While Miller's liberal past is well-known, on that evening he hit (and occasionally praised) politicians both sides of the aisle. It was a fair and even-handed assessment, spiced with illustrations from antiquity to the present.

In the days following the lecture, my notes hasily taken in the dark were excitedly deciphered and shared with colleagues and friends. When this book, adapted from the lecture, appeared, I immediately bought copies for myself and as gifts. The book would have benefited from a preface, explaining the original purpose and audience, but it is a good read. Having been written before the recent attack on America, Mr. Miller's most important observation may be that "one of the basic conditions of [a president's] employment...[is] a willingness to kill for us." Many of those regarded as 'great Presidents' were war presidents. "As war leader, a president rises to the stature of tragic figure touched by the arcane, the superhuman, entrusted as he is with not only the lives of our sons and daughters but the purity of the ideals which justify their sacrifice."

I tried to read this book that was allegedly on how acting affects elections in our soceity today. When I was about halfways through the book I got so disgusted by the authors constant politcal bias that I had to stop reading it. I would not recomend this book.

Arthur Miller is a brilliant playwright who helped changed the landscape of American theatre. Therefore, he does know a lot about acting. At the same time, I know from personal experience that Miller likes to talk and his political leanings aren't very secretive. ON POLITICS AND THE ART OF ACTING, Miller attempts to illustrate how acting goes hand and hand with politics and how the media has helped transform presidential elections so that no longer is it the best person that wins, but the person who is the better actor. The book has two distinct main points. The first being to discredit President George W. Bush. Miller's bias and sublime hatred toward the President are obvious. He tries to sugar coat his intellectual attack by making the case that there other Presidents that he admired (FDR) were better actors (stars), but the tone of the work and the subtle stabs it gives makes it clear that Miller really doesn't like the President and that all he wants to do is discredit him in any way he can. The second point of the book is the point the book ends on: that no matter what our failures as a people, culture, society, and a civilization, our Art will stand the test of time and it is our Art that people will remember and that we will be rememberd by. Art will save us. It's an interesting point to think about, though largely misguided, but when one realizes that the person making it is an Artist himself with an ego that needs boosting, it seems much more farcical than the supposed "failure" of the system in the 2000 Presidential election. Despite these faults, the book is interesting to read and gives a glimpse of the inner thought process of one of America's most beloved playwrights.