More than mere acting
Sir: Although, for me, Julie Burchill can do no wrong she does get things wrong in the hallowed tradition of English journalism. She believes that when Reagan was running for president, I dismissed him as a mere actor, 'never mind that he had been a politician for twice as long' as he'd been an actor (Diary, 12 October). According to England's own Who's Who, Reagan was an `actor, films and television 1937-66'; that's 29 years. He was governor of California 1967-74; that's eight years. By the time he became a presidential candidate, more than two-thirds of his career had been spent act- ing various roles while less than a third had been devoted to impersonating a governor.
Julie believes that we Lefties disdain actors in politics. We — at least I — don't. But I did note (1980) that the Hollywood contract actor of the Thirties and Forties was simply a piece of furniture to be moved about by a director and that 29 years of this sort of total passivity was hardly the best training for a president. Worse, those of us in 'The Industry' knew that not only did amiable Ron never read books but that he had practically no information of any kind about anything outside the Screen Actors Guild, itself not exactly a microcosm of the world. The plainly autonomous Glenda Jackson is in no way comparable to our great embarrassment.
Gore Vidal
Ravello, Italy
Previous page
