The selective silence of the guild: why do these actors never criticize Trump?
- The price of silence: Hollywood
- The false commitment to the Polisario Front
- What is the value of their signature?
- Double standards in the spotlight
And the question is inevitable: Why don't they go after Trump?. Because they know very well what is at stake
The price of silence: Hollywood
The United States remains the mecca of world cinema. Filming there, working on an American production, selling a script, or simply stepping onto a red carpet with industry contacts... means millions of dollars in income, exposure, and international visibility.
Openly criticizing Trump—or any US administration—would risk visas, contracts, and careers.
It's that simple. And that's why they don't do it.
You won't see a manifesto against Trump's immigration policy signed by the same people who criticize Morocco for shooting a film in the Sahara.
You won't see these actors demanding human rights in Somalia or denouncing Qatar's double standards.
Because there are no checks behind them. Because there are no cameras. Because there are no red carpets.
The false commitment to the Polisario Front
Many of them claim to defend the Sahrawi people, but they defend the Polisario Front and the Algerian military regime, not the Sahrawis held captive, forgotten, and manipulated in the Tindouf camps.
They have never denounced the indoctrination of children, the silencing of women, or the connections with extremist groups.
They do not defend human rights: they defend causes with political or aesthetic value.
What is the value of their signature?
No more than yours or mine. The actors are not judges or historians, diplomats or experts in geopolitics. They are professionals—like a carpenter, a teacher, or a nurse—who have a louder voice because they appear on television. Not because they know more.
That is why, every time one of these names appears signing “solidarity” manifestos, it is worth asking:
Are they signing this out of conviction... or because it does not jeopardize their career or their bank account?
Double standards in the spotlight
Their “commitment” has very clear boundaries:
They never touch the United States.
They never mention Iran or Algeria as oppressive regimes.
But they are quick to jump on the bandwagon if a blockbuster decides to shoot in southern Morocco.
Coincidence? No. Convenience.
What if Bardem had been hired by Nolan?
A question as simple as it is uncomfortable:
What would Javier Bardem—or any of the signatories of the manifesto against the filming of The Odyssey in Western Sahara—be doing today if he had been hired by Christopher Nolan as the lead actor?
Everyone knows the answer:
There would be no manifesto.
There would be no outrage.
There would be no cries of “occupation.”
There would be photos from the set, interviews for Netflix, and publications flying the flag of “cinema as a bridge between cultures.”
And, of course, no mention of the Polisario Front or Algeria, let alone the Sahrawis kidnapped in the Tindouf camps.
Because Hollywood salaries carry more weight than any “humanitarian cause” when the cause only burns if you're not in the cast.
That is what citizens should be asking themselves.
Not whether Nolan is bad. Not whether Morocco is manipulating.
The real question is this:
What would all these actors be doing today if they were part of the film?
Because they are not.
And because they are not, they sign.
But if they were, they would shut up, pose, and get paid.
In short, their activism is a stage set.
And as with all stage sets, what matters is not what's behind it, but how it looks in the photo.
Article previously published in Tribuna Digital7