Janeane Garofalo

Steal This Actress!

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Janeane Garofalo disdains celebrities who stump for political causes, but that hasn’t kept the versatile comedienne and actress from tackling political roles. In her newest film, Steal This Movie!, Garofalo stars as the wife of ’60s radical Abbie Hoffman. The indie biopic — which chronicles the turbulent life of the yippie leader — gave Garofalo an opportunity to showcase both her dramatic talents and her lefty credentials. She spoke to us from a summer camp in Pennsylvania where she was shooting Wet Hot American Summer, a comedy.

Mother Jones: Steal This Movie! is your first overtly political film. What drew you to play Anita Hoffman?

Janeane Garofalo: My politics are very liberal, so I love the era for obvious reasons. And I always had that image of Abbie Hoffman and the American flag shirt in my mind when I was younger. But it was also the role. I don’t get the opportunity to play many principal dramatic parts. And I’ve never played somebody who’s still alive — though Anita passed on last Thanksgiving. I figured it was an opportunity I couldn’t pass up, so I basically begged Robert [Greenwald], the director, to let me play it.

MJ: Was he surprised that you were interested?

JG: No, it was his labor of love. I think he’d be surprised if you weren’t interested.

MJ: You were a child during many of the events of this film. What do you remember about the ’60s?

JG: I was born in ’64. I remember my brother playing a prank on me and claiming I had been drafted. I was so upset. I believed him. I remember the Chicago Seven trial. I remember Hanoi Jane. I remember Nixon addressing the country. And I remember that even though my parents were very young, they were very conservative. They weren’t swept up in the ’60s revolution at all.

MJ: How did you reimmerse yourself in ’60s counterculture?

JG: I was very well read on the topic anyway. I just read more: all of Abbie’s books, Tom Hayden’s book, Anita’s book. I got eight tapes from Anita telling me about their lives.

MJ: What about Abbie Hoffman inspires you the most?

JG: Question authority — if you want a button issue. But the most important aspect of it is the civil rights work that Abbie and his cohorts did.

MJ: Hoffman was one of the first people to really understand the concept of mass media and how to take advantage of it politically.

JG: Abbie Hoffman welcomed any and all publicity. He would have killed to have his photo taken all the time and to be interviewed. So a lot of things he did were for ham reasons, and a lot of things he did were for the right reasons. He was a player. He worked it. People like Tom Hayden and Dave Dellinger — who was one of the Chicago Seven — they shunned that. Not all of them got along with Abbie very well for that reason.

MJ: Do you enjoy the exposure that your celebrity affords you?

JG: I actually don’t enjoy being photographed or doing interviews — no offense. It makes me embarrassed to be under that kind of focus. I feel like, Who the fuck cares what I think?

MJ: But as a public figure, you must have to choose whether to use your position to speak out about different issues.

JG: I try to avoid it, because it actually has the opposite effect. I think people are very cynical with actors trying to tell them what to believe in, or lobbying for any kind of changing of government policy. Even I get cynical about it. Like, Why is Sharon Stone telling me this? And there’s just something annoying about having Charlie Sheen tell me, “It’s your responsibility to vote,” in an admonishing way on MTV.

MJ: I always think of Richard Gere and Tibet.

JG: Exactly. Mr. Enlightened. He’s totally enlightened except that his girlfriends are still 20 years younger and in the modeling industry.

MJ: One thing you have been outspoken about is the way Hollywood portrays women.

JG: That’s not grandstanding, because I live it. I am a victim of it. I’m talking about my personal, negative experiences.

MJ: But you don’t see yourself as a role model for the young women of America?

JG: I don’t see myself as a role model in any way. I would be flattered if anybody thought that I was, but I really don’t think that’s the case.

MJ: Don’t you think you’re skirting the line a bit by doing such a political movie?

JG: I’m comfortable doing a political film for the left. If somebody cast me in The Charlton Heston Story, I probably wouldn’t do it.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate