Commentary: Hollywood’s publicity paradox on Donald Trump

President Trump has been weighing in a lot lately on media and entertainment personalities. But those personalities also have been weighing in on him.

Or, more accurately, weighing whether to weigh in on him.‎

The newly released Hollywood Reporter 100 — an indication, or at least confirmation, of the industry’s power centers — has made the president a centerpiece theme this year. The results are telling.

Some of those questioned responded with unmissable directness. The president is “amoral … he recognizes no truth beyond himself,” said FX Chief John Landgraf. Others demurred. But the most prevailing sentiment among the filmmakers and other boldfaced names is one of ambivalence.

Not ambivalence, it should be said, about the leader himself. Given the well-documented politics of many of these personalities, their feelings on Trump don’t seem that tough to divine. But there’s an unmistakable ambivalence about how much they want to be on the record opposing him.

Asked about Trump by THR reporters, “Wonder Woman” director Patty Jenkins noted, “I think he has put the messages and discussions that I want to have more in focus and pertinent than ever.” “Madea” kingmaker Tyler Perry said the president “reinvigorated my resolve to bring light and laughter and healing to this world.” “The Dark Tower” producer Brian Grazer said, “I make a lot of Horatio Alger underdog stories. So his presence in the White House affects how I do that.” You can practically hear the inner turmoil humming off the page.

Luminaries are understandably conflicted. How much entertainment personalities should offer their opinion on Trump is shaping up as a key issue — perhaps the key issue — for Hollywood during these charged political times.

And it will become an increasingly prominent dilemma now that many of the lighter popcorn movies are behind us and more serious-minded offerings — from Christopher Nolan and Kathryn Bigelow this summer and the likes of Steven Spielberg, Dee Rees and Darren Aronofsky in the fall — start hitting theaters. (The issue is how much they should culturally offer their opinions, of course; on a human level, they can and should say whatever they please.)

On the one hand, comments from Hollywood folks on politics can elicit a who-asked-them dismissal from those who don’t agree, and not much more than a validating back-slap from those who do. Entertainment personalities who feel a compulsion to weigh in on subjects far from their work or area of expertise can seem like carpetbaggers, or worse. After Johnny Depp recently made his widely lambasted assassination joke (he later apologized), it seemed clear: Speaking what’s actually on your mind certainly wasn’t good for those of us listening. And it wasn’t exactly good for those speaking either.

The goal clearly isn’t to change minds. Even the far more measured Meryl Streep speech at the Golden Globes, while certainly delivering some timely solace to anti-Trump precincts in blue America, didn’t do a whole lot to move the needle. In fact, it became one more example of supposed elites rejecting Trump out of hand, which the president has masterfully used to win a mandate in the first place. (See also: the way the CNN slugfest has been finessed by the White House over the past week.)

But the issue isn’t as simple as saying that film people should stay away from politics.

The Nolans and Rees of the world deal with weighty themes in their work, and it is as reasonable to ask them about Trump on their media circuits as it is for them to want to comment about the president. Indeed, many likely have artistic or commercial reasons for connecting their work to the political climate.

Besides, as some in the THR piece make clear, issues of free speech resonate with artists. It’s easy to say they should mind their own business, but the ability to express ideas in a world that, at times, seems to flirt with the Orwellian very much is their business.

It’s easy to say these folks should stick to being actors or directors or producers or executives. But the truth it that’s not what we want from celebrities. The system is set up for weighing in — it’s set up for the personality to have a brand outside his or her work. (Witness, in a rather different vein, Goop-mania.) The notion that actors or directors will just talk about movies and shows and then go home is, for better or ill, a thing of the past. Promotional interviews for films or television (not to mention year-round social media accounts) are as much about the package of the person making the comment as they are about the substance of what’s being promoted.

The persona of Kristen Stewart is as important to her fans as the characters she plays, which is why a glimpse into her personal life is not only part of the territory — it is the territory. Political views, simultaneously a form of expression and brand-building, falls into this category too.

‎And this is where things get sticky. Because the system is also set up for many people around the celebrity to manage his or her image. And because anything political can complicate that image (and undermine a star’s bankability), they generally don’t want clients wandering in political directions.

This makes for one of the great paradoxes of modern publicity. With abundant social media, proliferating online outlets and interviews around the globe, there are more ways than ever for stars to express their opinions — and more handlers than ever to tell them not to.

Historically, this is a huge anomaly. Stars of decades past, from Lauren Bacall to John Wayne to Jane Fonda, may have been very willing to state their political views, but fewer ways of reaching people. Now the script is flipped: Because stars know how easily they can speak, they don’t. For every Johnny Depp giving an obscure speech at Glastonbury that rockets around the world, there are five celebrities watching, thinking there-but-for-the-grace-of-God and deciding to stay mum‎. The new tools for candor collide with a reluctance to use them.

One well-known Hollywood personality I interviewed post-inauguration was, mid-interview, about to start down the road of an anti-Trump screed, then stopped. I asked why. Did they not want to alienate fans? Were they still working out their own thoughts? “No, it’s not that,” they replied. “I just don’t want the studio and my publicist mad at me.”

Speaking up as a citizen is necessary and important. Speaking up as a Hollywood brand is a far trickier game.

See the most-read stories in Entertainment this hour »

steve.zeitchik@latimes.com

Twitter: @ZeitchikLAT