Aaron Sorkin: Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Death Saved 10 Lives
The creator of 'The West Wing' and the renowned actor shared a struggle with drug addiction. Sorkin remembers a performer who dominated the real estate upon which his characters walked
Phil Hoffman and I had two things in common. We were both fathers of young children, and we were both recovering drug addicts. Of course I’d known Phil’s work for a long time — since his remarkably perfect film debut as a privileged, cowardly prep-school kid in Scent of a Woman — but I’d never met him until the first table read for Charlie Wilson’s War, in which he’d been cast as Gust Avrakotos, a working-class CIA agent who’d fallen out of favor with his Ivy League colleagues. A 180-degree turn.
On breaks during rehearsals, we would sometimes slip outside our soundstage on the Paramount lot and get to swapping stories. It’s not unusual to have these mini-AA meetings — people like us are the only ones to whom tales of insanity don’t sound insane. “Yeah, I used to do that.” I told him I felt lucky because I’m squeamish and can’t handle needles. He told me to stay squeamish. And he said this: “If one of us dies of an overdose, probably 10 people who were about to won’t.” He meant that our deaths would make news and maybe scare someone clean.
So it’s in that spirit that I’d like to say this: Phil Hoffman, this kind, decent, magnificent, thunderous actor, who was never outwardly “right” for any role but who completely dominated the real estate upon which every one of his characters walked, did not die from an overdose of heroin — he died from heroin. We should stop implying that if he’d just taken the proper amount then everything would have been fine.
He didn’t die because he was partying too hard or because he was depressed — he died because he was an addict on a day of the week with a y in it. He’ll have his well-earned legacy — his Willy Loman that belongs on the same shelf with Lee J. Cobb’s and Dustin Hoffman’s, his Jamie Tyrone, his Truman Capote and his Academy Award. Let’s add to that 10 people who were about to die who won’t now.
Sorkin is an Academy Award–winning writer who wrote the screenplays for two of Hoffman’s films: Charlie Wilson’s War (2007) and Moneyball(2011)
A few thoughts:
1) How strange to be discussing your likely future overdose - if we have a responsibility to keep people from making bad decisions (rationale for outlawing drugs), why does that responsibility not extend to individuals who hear others talking about doing these drugs? If we do not believe there is an individual duty to stop people from taking drugs, why does that duty exist collectively through prohibition?
2) Good for Sorkin for saying, "...did not die from an overdose of heroin — he died from heroin. We should stop implying that if he’d just taken the proper amount then everything would have been fine." Drugs are (generally) bad, they can ruin your life if abused. This is where liberals and libertarians differ - I think they should be legal and avoided entirely or used sparingly even if legal. It seems Liberals feel people should partake freely because drugs "aren't really that bad" or believe they can draw some magical line between the "good" and "bad" drugs that can be applied uniformly to everyone.
Which brings me to my final observation. Liberals commonly argue that the drug war criminalizes "non-violent offenders", and drug users and dealers are mistreated and persecuted by the justice system. But then someone famous and beloved by society overdoses, and an outcry erupts to find the drug dealers who "killed him". Doesn't that seem a bit inconsistent?
No comments:
Post a Comment