Celebrities will not save us
Celebrities are meeting the moment with a mixture of self-interest and evasion
What do we want from celebrities?
Charm. Charisma. Talent. A few laughs. Maybe salacious gossip now and then. But I think that’s the extent of it, and it’s important to be realistic about those expectations.
And yet, stars have access to some of the biggest megaphones around. And inevitably, they will say dumb shit about this terrible moment we’re in.
If one has the attention of millions of people, is it most beneficial to spend that time promoting ideas that might address our current anxieties — how to identify organizations advocating for immigrants, for example — or to instead relitigate the 2024 presidential election?
If you’re George Clooney, apparently the answer is the latter. He has a new movie he’s hawking (Netflix’s “Jay Kelly”) and was recently featured on CBS’s “Sunday Morning” news magazine. The interview was done when he was in Venice for the film’s premiere in August. To be fair, a lot has happened since then.
But it was public knowledge that CBS owner Paramount had agreed to pay Donald Trump $16 million dollars to settle a lawsuit — rather than defend its editorial decisions — concerning a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris.
Does Clooney think the settlement has compromised the parent company — and CBS, by extension?
He’s certainly positioned himself as someone who has authoritative ideas about the integrity of TV news, going so far as to mount and star in the recent Broadway adaptation of his 2005 docudrama “Good Night, and Good Luck,” about efforts to intimidate the media in the 1950s. The movie (and play) are about Edward R. Murrow, a CBS man if there ever was one!
If we take Clooney’s messaging at face value, he had two choices: He could decline to appear on CBS, or he could bring up concerns about the settlement and new corporate ownership during the interview. The former wouldn’t have helped promote the movie. The latter would have been the more aggressive choice and perhaps similarly self-defeating if his comments were edited out entirely.
But it’s worth pointing out that he did neither. Instead, he sat for a chummy, standard-issue interview.
Consider the media savvy of someone like Clooney. These interviews are about movie promotion, yes, but also self-promotion and image-making. Clooney has been at this long enough to become adept at steering an interview, should he choose.
And he chose to … complain about Kamala Harris being the Democratic nominee. (While also saying later in the interview, about something else: “I don’t think looking backwards like that is helpful to anyone.” Hypocrisy at its finest!)
Now granted, this came up because he was asked to comment on his New York Times op-ed from last year, where he called for Joe Biden to drop out of the race.
But again, someone as media trained and experienced as Clooney would have understood that he didn’t need to respond directly, but could have said something along the lines of: “This is what I hope will happen going forward and who and what I want to highlight and support” and then say that stuff about the futility of looking backwards, because he’s right!
Instead, he wasted valuable media real estate.
He’s not the only one
On the opposite end of the spectrum, but just as useless really, is Jennifer Lawrence. She’s also doing the rounds for a new movie (“Die My Love”) and during a podcast interview, she was asked about her public criticism of the first Trump administration, and whether that’s something she intends to do now:
“I don’t really know if I should … As we’ve learned, election after election, celebrities do not make a difference whatsoever on who people vote for. So then what am I doing?”
But then she gave away the game:
I think I’m in a complicated recalibration because I’m also an artist. With this temperature and the way things can turn out, I don’t want to start turning people off to films and to art that could change consciousness or change the world because they don’t like my political opinions.
Oh, right. She’s an artist so …
So what?
She (or any other A-lister) could say something as simple as: “I just really want people to be able to eat.”
Jeff Bridges, who founded the nonprofit End Hunger Network 40-some years ago, was on CNN recently saying a version of that. It’s a pretty straightforward message!
There are also celebrities who have spoken out in support of Palestinians and dared to use the word “genocide” to describe what’s happening to people in Gaza. And some of those actors have experienced fallout — Melissa Barrera lost work when she was dropped from the “Scream” franchise.
But the it comes to A-listers more generally, there’s been a conspicuous silence.
Let’s talk about (long sigh) that Sydney Sweeney ad
Or more accurately, let’s see what Sweeney had to say when she was asked about it in a recent profile for GQ:
Q: Is there something that you want to say about the ad itself? The criticism of the content was basically that, maybe specifically in this political climate, white people shouldn’t joke about genetic superiority.
A: I think that when I have an issue that I want to speak about, people will hear.
Sweeney has one of the hardest working PR teams around, and yet that response is textbook evasion dripping with subtext.
As a friend put it, imagine not being able to bring yourself to say, “No, I’m not a white supremacist.”
This is an industry of self-interest
Right now, the capitalist imperative tends to win out and most celebrities are keeping their heads down and their mouths shut.
There are exceptions. Rachel Accurso, better known as Ms. Rachel on her eponymous YouTube series for kids, has been unwavering in her advocacy for Palestinian children.
She was honored this week as one of Glamour magazine’s Women of the Year and according to reports, she “asked kids from Gaza to make artwork that told their stories, and then had their pictures embroidered onto an upcycled dress that she purchased for the event. We’re told she knows the meaning behind each artwork, and her hope is that she will elevate these children’s stories, and so many others, by wearing them tonight.”
Here’s what she told Glamour about her philosophy on this:
“I have these briefings where I learn what it’s like to be a kid in the hardest places. I don’t think having a platform comes with negatives. One of the positives is being able to highlight issues and get a message to a bigger audience. I think it’s a big responsibility that should be used as much as possible.”
I respect that she says this is a responsibility! No hedging or beating around the bush.
Her dress became an inevitable conversation piece on the red carpet, which is what made it such a smart choice; she was attending an event celebrating her, but she used it as an opportunity to steer the focus back to Palestinian children.
In some cases, though, celebrities think they’re doing something, when they would have been better off zippin’ it.
Debra Messing. Oh, Debra Messing. “Will & Grace” made her a TV star, but she seems to be doing everything in her power to tarnish that reputation, expressing her opinions about mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani on social media through memes and posts that contained “blatant Islamophobia.”
We expect more for a reason
Celebrities were using the power of their fame more thoughtfully in the mid-20th Century.
For Salon, University of Chicago professor Jerel Ezell wrote about this specifically as it pertains to Black celebrities:
Dating back to the second wave of Jim Crow-style racism in the early 1950s, Black celebrities have been critical in efforts to bring awareness to racial injustice and accountability to those perpetrating it.
He contrasts that with what he sees today:
… leading Black talents have been largely mum on Black America’s worsening plight. Whether this reflects a genuine lack of awareness or strategic ignorance, the dynamic reflects a palpable shift from the Black collectivism that typified the Civil Rights era to one centered squarely, and often unapologetically, around Black individualism.
Strategic ignorance. What a perfect phrase.
It brings to mind an interview with Keira Knightley last month for the digital outlet Decider:
Q: I saw you’re voicing Professor Umbridge in the new Harry Potter audiobooks. Are you aware that some fans are calling for a Harry Potter boycott, given J.K. Rowling’s ongoing campaign against trans people?
A: I was not aware of that, no. I’m very sorry. You know, I think we’re all living in a period of time right now where we’re all going to have to figure out how to live together, aren’t we? And we’ve all got very different opinions. I hope that we can all find respect.
In order to buy her professed ignorance, you’d also have to believe her managers, agents and publicists also had no inkling whatsoever of concerns around Rowling — and they’re paid to be aware of these very things, that’s their job. Or did Knightley and her team simply decided Rowling’s behavior wasn’t a deal-breaker? PR is all about spin, though, which requires more than that word salad of an answer.
I guess you could say it was “nicer” than Sweeney’s “when I have something to say, you’ll know it,” but they’re more or less the same genre of response; both actors made it clear exactly where they stand.
The risks …
It’s scary to put yourself on the line. I get that. There are risks and repercussions that can extend beyond career or financial considerations. Nobody wants to put a target on their back and nobody’s a coward for being afraid right now. There are legitimate reasons to be afraid.
And yet there are individuals who are putting themselves at risk to advocate for what’s right. They are regular people who are, by and large, “nobodies,” but in a much more meaningful sense, the real “somebodies” — more so than any celebrity at the moment.
It’s wise for us, as media consumers, to be clear about the role of celebrities. Their utility is really only as vessels of entertainment on our screens. Off-screen, they are highly resourced and far more protected than the average person.
Clooney and his wife, for example, are raising their children in France:
I was worried about raising our kids in L.A., in the culture of Hollywood. I felt like they were never going to get a fair shake at life. France — they kind of don’t give a shit about fame.
Listen, I’m neutral on this. People should live where they want!
It’s notable, however, that his motivating factors — wanting a better life for his family — are the same as those of most immigrants. But because of Clooney’s money and status, that framing isn’t used. Clooney and his family are simply jet-setters and citizens of the world.
But it does give a tinge of “you chose not to live here anymore” every time Clooney weighs in on U.S. politics. He’s allowed to have his opinions and vote his preferences. But he’s doing more than that. He’s using his enormous platform to advance those opinions and preferences — and in counterproductive ways, many might argue.
Celebrities will not save us.
We can only save ourselves.
More to worry about …
For the Tribune, I wrote about some of the themes explored in Kathryn Bigelow’s “A House of Dynamite” on Netflix.
A fictional “what if?” about a nuclear missile headed straight for Chicago, it’s a premise in search of a movie (and therefore not much of a film), but I do think it’s good that it potentially gets people thinking about these issues, terrifying as they are.
Chicago — the real Chicago — happens to be home to the Doomsday Clock. It’s also where The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is based. The latter is an organization founded in 1945 by people involved in the Manhattan Project to warn about dangers they had unleashed. I spoke to two experts from the Bulletin and it was a fascinating, if disturbing, conversation:
Q: The movie operates under the assumption that there’s a base level of competence of the people involved. But we know that in reality, many in both the military and government with extensive experience and knowledge have been removed from their posts, or have left of their own accord. So this idea of assuming competence doesn’t sync up with reality right now.
Holz: I completely agree. Let’s do a quick “true or false” on the film. Would it really happen this quickly? Yes, that’s true. Does missile defense work 61% of the time? No, that’s false, it’s much worse than that. Let’s get to your question: Are there adults in the room that will save us? And I would say that’s doubly false.
Take John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev. They both were absolutely not going to start World War III over the Cuban Missile Crisis. They made it very clear in their diaries and in speaking with people, they would have absolutely capitulated rather than launch missiles. But they ended up very close to launching missiles anyway through miscommunication and misunderstandings. The whole thing is terrifying.
So even in the best of cases, it’s extremely dangerous. And I think an argument can be made that right now we’re not in the best of cases. We don’t have very informed, deliberate decision-making at the top.
You can read the full conversation here.
Forget the male loneliness panic. On TV, it’s women grappling with profound loneliness
Also for the Trib, I look at HBO’s “I Love LA” and Apple’s “Pluribus,” two buzzy new shows that I don’t especially like, but I’m struck by their throughlines of female loneliness, even if the series aren’t explicitly being promoted that way.
Actually, that’s true of at least one storyline in Netflix’s “Nobody Wants This,” as well.
You can read that column here.
