Using Hollywood

Let's

Posted by David Roberts at 2:52 PM on 01 Dec 2006

Read more about: celebrity

Variety's special package on the greening of Hollywood is pretty good. Joel Makower has a nice rundown.

Joel says one thing I'd like to follow up on:

... the last thing the environmental movement -- always struggling for relevance as a mainstream force in America and elsewhere -- needs is a closer alliance with the left-leaning Hollywood elite.

He doesn't make too much of this, but it's a common sentiment, so it's worth addressing.

Movement conservatism has spent the last 30 years consciously and strategically demonizing powerful progressive constituencies: unions, lawyers, the entertainment industry, academia, and the entire city of San Francisco. It has been extraordinarily successful in this effort, establishing a number of narratives and stereotypes so ubiquitous that even progressives have come to internalize them.

One such narrative is that "Hollywood" is a decadent Sodom totally out of touch with Real American Values. The crucial corollary is that associating with "Hollywood" is a liability for progressives.

As my granddad used to say: "You think this bourbon's gonna to refill itself, boy?"

Oh, wait. The relevant granddadism is: "I haven't seen horseshit like that since a horse shit on my foot!" (He was not what you'd call an elegant wit.)

Hollywood is extremely influential, both economically and culturally. And you know why? Because everyone, in every demographic, in every part of the country, consumes its products. You think Desperate Housewives would be so popular if no one in Red America watched it? You think Red Americans don't go see the movies and buy the Happy Meals and buy their kids the action figures? You think Red American housewives don't read People and US Weekly?

American celebrities are the arbiters of cool, and not just in America either. Joe and Jane Smith in Small Town, USA might not like it, but trust me, their daughter wants to sleep with George Clooney too. If George Clooney says it's cool to give a damn about climate change and energy use, that makes an impression on her.

The casual contempt for celebrities shared by cable news talking heads, liberal intellectuals, and evangelical preachers is itself a form of elitism. All of America is awash in Hollywood, every hour of every day. Hollywood is an extraordinarily powerful weapon, a bunker buster, a tactical nuke. If we let right wing bloviators talk us out of using it, we're dumber than they are. And that ain't easy.

For story: Using Hollywood
15 Comments | Post a Comment

`Yes!

Sorry, this is so damn important I had to reinforce it - even though I have nothing to add.

by Gar Lipow at 3:03 PM on 01 Dec 2006

but the power comes partly from their silence

As Woody Harrelson and other hollywood greenies can probably testify too, as soon as you stick your neck out you get egged by the mainstream in hollywood.

For all their power, Hollywood-ites are terribly conformist. They don't want to bite the many hands that feed them whether they be red or blue. It's one thing to have a total meltdown in the public eye or have outrageous personal behavior, but to take a stand is virtually verbotten. There are of course exceptions, but on the whole the Hollywood machine is very reluctant to rock the boat.

I am reminded of when adbusters tried to take out an anti-mercial and were refused. They couldn't even buy airtime. You can peddle booze and cigarettes, you can lie about politicians, but you can't actually call the system corrupt on the public airwaves.

I wouldn't look to Hollywood anytime soon as a bastion of environmental action. Their bread is buttered on American consumerism.

by Kif Scheuer at 4:46 PM on 01 Dec 2006

Hollywood

Kif - I'm not expecting network executives or studio heads to get behind progressive causes (with some exceptions). But many individual actors, musicians etc. (including many stars), and writers and directors too have used their fame to support progressive causes - even when they paid a price for it. I don't think that will change.

by Gar Lipow at 7:01 PM on 01 Dec 2006

Celebrity money

I find it "interesting" that many celebrities have championed pet causes but don't put their money where their mouths are. For example, many stood up and said "Save the Redwoods!". They could have been very much more effective if the uber-rich celebs banded together and actually BOUGHT those very same redwoods and donated em to the State of California, with a hefty tax write-off, to boot.

I also wonder how many of those very same folks have spacious redwood decks, cherry furniture and exquisite wood paneling <grin>

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

by Backcut at 8:15 PM on 01 Dec 2006

"movement conservatism"

A current example of how frighteningly unified the conservative spokespeople can be is the dismaying reaction of many of them to the new feature-length cartoon "Happy Feet." They cleverly have presented their outrage as a "family values" issue: "How dare they miseducate and indoctrinate my child, without warning me beforehand?!" Usually in the past, that kind of outrage has been directed against sex education ("Abstinence only!"; "Homosexuality is a sin!") and evolution ("The evolutionists must not be allowed to suppress alternative views!"). So now, it is breath-taking (in the bad sense: on the way to asphyxiating) to see the same people called on to rally in support of the pro-big-extractionist anti-regulationist crowd, who are not their natural allies at all.

By the way, I have not seen the movie yet, so cannot comment on the starchy, chilly reaction by Yolanda Crous in these pages ("Arts and Minds"). She apparently has a high sensitivity in reaction against moralizing efforts in children's entertainment. I agree that after-school TV looks pretty boring, but I am not of the audience who can judge such things. Feature-length cartoons are another matter. What did Yolanda think of "Ice Age II: Meltdown"? Does it lay the "message" on too thickly for her taste?

On celebrities promoting causes: It is true, it is tricky, and can backfire. John Kerry's celebrity-spangled event at Radio City Music Hall in late Spring, 2004, much publicized, and featuring vaguely obscene anti-Bush remarks by Whoopi Goldberg (whom I love, and consider one of the greatest actors performing today), proved to be the first nail in his coffin.

Then, that buffoon Tucker Carlson succeeds at cheering up his side whenever he mentions his frequent target, Barbra Streisand. I do not know if he ever answered the question, why she should be less credible in speaking out on political issues than he is. Because she has lots of money? But - but - but - I thought Republicans admired that!

There are some seriously committed and thoughtful celebrities engaged in causes, who generally come across well. Back in the 1990s, there was Vanessa Redgrave, speaking out for ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Then, there was Christopher Reeve, and now Michael Jay Fox, speaking out for embryonic stem cell research. George Clooney has been terrific on a number of issues.

Idea: Grist should interview him!

Whether the African interests of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt will amount to much, we shall see. Madonna's adoption of a baby in Malawi seems to have been an unnecessary distraction -- however well it turns out for the baby.

On Leonardo di Caprio and his new interests: I do not yet know enough about what he is up to yet. But from all that I have read, he seems to be committed.

Another idea: Grist should interview him!

In sum, I do not think that movement conservatism's lumping of Hollywood in with all that is Liberal and evil is an irresistible tactic. It will take some doing, but, in full agreement with David's assessment that LA-based entertainment is the fabric of our lives, I think any Hollywood celebrity can, with some effort and sincere commitment, say something effective on any emotionally engaging issue.

Apologies to Rob Reiner, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, etc., for passing them over without mention.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 5:10 AM on 02 Dec 2006

The problem with celebs is that

they can just as easily promote bad ideas as they can good ones ...soy based biodiesel and corn ethanol, which are they, good or bad? Members of the intelligentsia, they are not. Tom Cruise and his cult, Gibson following up his Christ flick with Jew bashing...

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 9:44 AM on 02 Dec 2006

celebrity status quo

Gar,

Your comment actually reinforces what I'm saying. As you note many individual celebrities promote their causes and some even pay a price for it and we are exactly where?

What David seemed to be getting at is that there is some vast pool of untapped enviro resource laying dormant within Hollywood that we should reach out to and unleash (is that 3 mixed metaphors or just 2?) I just don't see it. I just don't see the bunker buster he and you do.

by Kif Scheuer at 11:34 AM on 02 Dec 2006

"we are exactly where?"

Good question, Kif. But results are hard to measure. They are not immediate; ideas need to mature.

And right, Biodiv. Those are excellent examples of celebs that richly deserve to be ignored.

Which just goes to show, we cannot expect too much from celebrities' activism. Yes, some of them are doing very good work, by their own effort and at their own expense. Are they persuading anyone? Hard to say. My guess is, the cause must already be in the air, and must already be recognized as worthwhile; then, when a celebrity embraces it and does something newsworthy in connexion with it, it becomes much more of a magnet for money.

Yes, in certain circumstances, fund-raising is the best that one can expect from celebrity involvement in a cause. Historically that has worked better with one-time events, featuring musicians rather than actors: the Concert for Bangladesh, and the 1980s concert for the famine victims in Ethiopia. The latter event is said to have raised a lot of money, which perhaps was well spent. Ideally it should have produced a long-term movement for dealing with poverty issues in Africa, but that did not happen.

It is hard to say if celebrities have positively affected any sort of political action. Did Michael Jay Fox help Claire McCaskill? Perhaps; or maybe she got over the hump more because of Rush Limbaugh's amazingly tasteless reaction.

And then, of course, there is Bono ...

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 2:05 PM on 02 Dec 2006

Using Hollywood

The best way to use Hollywood is to help us tell the stories we need to tell. We need to create a message and frame it in a way that people can understand. This is what Hollywood is good at doing (and it does not include actors and actresses as much as it includes writers and directors).

Look at Penguins, many of the Disney movies, Ice Age and others. They all have messages included in them.

When we create enough stories, they begin to have an impact on society (as an example we can see that the cowboy movies of John Wayne had an impact on people's thinking).

These days, movies are our source of myths. They tell us who we are, and what we think about ourselves more effectively than other forms of communications (we can include tv in the mix, sadly).

To "use" Hollywood, we need to ignore celebrities and go after those who frame, create and tell the stories.

patrick

by bookerly at 3:12 PM on 02 Dec 2006

"the stories we need to tell"

Amen, Brother Patrick! You have never written more truly.

Meanwhile, I am figuring out a story to go around my old Kentucky Grandpappy's curious suggestion, "You think this bourbon's gonna refill itself, boy?"

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 3:28 PM on 02 Dec 2006

I'm torn...

I agree with biodiversity above that often celebs can champion bad causes- also, in many ways I think their influence trivializes issues- look at Madonna in Africa spending money on an orphanage where they're going to teach Kaballa- the issues are so much bigger than pet projects of people with no greater intelligence than the regular population that I think on net their effect is negative. Sorry to rain on the parade.

J.S.

J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info

by jscorse at 6:26 PM on 02 Dec 2006

Why cousin

Dear CanisCandida,

We seem to have the same grandad :)

One could explain that small amounts of bourbon (never cut or mixed, unless one really wants to) require less land than large amounts of hops, and are thus the perfect vegetarian accomplishment to...umm, after a couple who cares? Let's tell stories about growing up instead!

Or one could tell about the time Uncle Jack came over to cut the grass and found the liquor cabinet unlocked. He swore that such a sign meant that grass should grow longer as nature intended it, and when found naked in a pile of mulch, happily declaimed that "Bourbon is the new green".

Ever since then, his lawn has been the home for all sorts of plants and critters (to the despair of his mono-culture neighbors) and no pile of mulch is safe.

pace,

patrick

by bookerly at 2:08 AM on 03 Dec 2006

hurray for Uncle Jack!

Actually, Patrick, I was channeling David Roberts, who shared that granddadism with us up in the original post. So maybe you and David have the same granddad! That rather sarcastic but not unaffectionate little lesson in physics by an elder to his beloved grandchild clearly has the makings to be the seed of a good story, and so I was playfully thinking out some possibilities. But no, the Border States are not my milieu at all, and I rapidly hit a stone wall.

You, on the other hand, got right into things very nicely, with that cute story about Uncle Jack. And so I am only all the more convinced, as I told you a long time ago, that you should write up your memoirs.

In fact, I am not too crazy about bourbon. My husband on the other hand drinks Jack Daniels as his sacramental beverage, which is really bourbon except for the inconvenience of the distillery's location with respect to the state line. And of course he takes it "never cut or mixed." I prefer Scotch, always with water or ice. At least we can agree on Irish whiskey, on the rocks.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 8:41 AM on 03 Dec 2006

Eh

I'm all for anybody who can influence anybody else to support the environment to continue to do so. Hollywood is made up of people, the same as us (with higher pay grades, sure) and we shouldn't discount people supporting the common good, regardless of occupation.

Good on you for saying this bit:

"Movement conservatism has spent the last 30 years consciously and strategically demonizing powerful progressive constituencies: unions, lawyers, the entertainment industry, academia, and the entire city of San Francisco. It has been extraordinarily successful in this effort, establishing a number of narratives and stereotypes so ubiquitous that even progressives have come to internalize them."

Brilliant and true. And it's really exhausting coming up with 'excuses' for the people who use this as their dogma to debunk what progressives say, support, and do. It's a good effort, one that needs to be undertaken, but it's a step backward all the time when our efforts could be spent elsewhere. Stupid movement conservatism - it's brilliant at distracting us from our true goals for a moment.

by swozniak at 9:08 AM on 04 Dec 2006

It goes both ways, though

All too often, in the name of fighting "corporate greed", people will rail against good projects. That is the sad state of forest management these days. They often do this without considering the scientific ramifications of "just leaving the forests the hell alone". As has been said before in this forum, it's going to take a consensus to restore our forests to keep them as functioning ecosystems. Letting drought-parched forests remain overstocked, letting the bark beetles have their way, and letting fires burn uncontrolled, then calling it "natural and beneficial" is dangerous thinking.

Yes, many western forests WILL come back "naturally" in 500 years if we go back to the Indian's ways. That would mean a fundamental change which would include no vehicles in the forests and no roads. While many would embrace this return to an older way of life, it just ain't gonna happen.

I would think that, when faced with the overwhelming millions of dead trees in Hollywood's favorite playground (Big Bear and Arrowhead Lakes), celebrities might notice that the Forest Service MUST intervene, to save what is left. In fact, many of them own property and homes up there and have had to spend many thousands of dollars to remove the dead trees from their property. That doesn't even address the dead trees on a next-door neighbor's property threatening to fall across property lines.

To reach this consensus, it's going to take education and understanding, as well as excellent project management and experienced personnel. Now, more than ever, it's important to ask yourself; Are you part of the problem, or part of the solution??

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

by Backcut at 11:04 AM on 04 Dec 2006

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.