Zelensky’s appearance at the Grammys shouldn’t have worked. Here’s why it did

Amy Schumer was mocked for suggesting the same thing at the Oscars a week earlier

President Volodymyr Zelensky video-conferencing into the Grammys from his war room to introduce a musical tribute to the Ukrainian people could have come across like a bad joke. In fact, just a week earlier, Amy Schumer’s suggestion that Zelensky should have appeared at the Oscars ceremony was received that way because it was just this side of implausible. Without Zelensky’s participation — or the inclusion of three Ukrainian performers along with John Legend — the Grammys’ musical tribute likely would have come across as disconnected self-importance from Hollywood and music industry elite, like the infamous “Imagine” video that circulated on social media in the early days of the pandemic.

But there are few politicians today who better understand the link between popular culture and politics than Zelensky — and even fewer who are as adept at leveraging that link. In his introductory speech, given in English, the Ukrainian president began, “What is more opposite to music? The silence of ruined cities and killed people.” He emphasized the contrast between the glamorous celebration happening on the Grammys stage and the death and destruction happening at that moment on the ground in Ukraine, between the silence of death and the joy of music. “Our musicians wear body armors instead of tuxedos. They sing to the wounded in hospitals. Even to those who can’t hear them,” he said. “But the music will break through anyway. We defend our freedom. To live. To love. To sound.”

As he has done in dozens of speeches, before international governing bodies and posted to his social media, Zelensky urged those in the west not to look away and not to let the war slip from public consciousness. “Fill the silence with your music. Fill it today to tell our story. Tell the truth about this war on your social networks, on TV. Support us, in any way you can. Any — but not silence.”

Theoretically, we know by now the importance of an engaging media narrative and an effective propaganda campaign in shaping public opinion and creating political action. Still, it is easy to dismiss the self-aggrandizement of celebrities and entertainers who seem to consider themselves as performers of some sacred duty. This idea was parodied most recently in Adam McKay’s “Don’t Look Up,” with Ariana Grande playing a pop star giving a benefit concert as an asteroid hurtled toward Earth. Of course, the film itself also attempted to use entertainment to promote its political message.

Entertainment, especially popular entertainment, is always some form of political theater. The American right knows this. It’s why they are currently criticizing Disney for “indoctrinating” children with more inclusive programming.

There is also perhaps no more appropriate stage in western entertainment for a political message than the Grammys. Of all popular art forms, music has the most robust political potency. “The Star-Spangled Banner,” “Strange Fruit,” “F*ck tha Police,” and, yes, “Imagine,” are all political statements that gained salience through popular culture. Neither Donald Trump nor Zelensky would have achieved power without capturing the cultural imagination through entertainment. But just because this is the mechanism that gave us Trump doesn’t mean that the mechanism is itself bad.

As much as we may decry a media ecosystem that filters news through entertainment — whether that’s on Fox News, MSNBC, The Daily Show, or the Grammys — this is not a 21st century invention. It’s also a morally neutral tool that can be used for good rather than evil when in the right hands. Zelensky is a proven master of using pop culture as a political tool — moving from playing the president on TV to the actual presidency, touting his relationships with celebrities like Mila Kunis, and seizing every microphone offered him to reiterate the moral urgency of the moment.