So I half watched the Oscars, despite the fact that I had seen just three films with any nominations at all. I was mainly hoping Michelle Williams would win Best Supporting Actress (I’ve loved her ever since she loved Dick), which she didn’t. But that’s not quite outrageous enough to move me to write. George Clooney’s acceptance speech, on the other hand, ended like this:
We are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. We were the ones who talked about AIDS when it was being whispered. We talked about civil rights when it wasn’t really popular. This Academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I’m proud to be part of this Academy. I’m proud to be part of this community. I’m proud to be out of touch
This is a pretty annoying speech who ever gives it, quite frankly. For me, politics isn’t actually about feeling smug about how I’m much better than the great unwashed, but about building and organising so you’re not out of touch. Being alternative and radical isn’t actually my goal, because I think that it’s only through collective action that we’re going to end capitalism, not through being rich and famous.
But it’s particularly annoying from George Clooney, who was nominated for Good Night and Good Luck, a movie whose message (McCarthyism is bad when the people involved aren’t communists) was so radical that Joe Liberman would have supported it. Yes Three Kings was actually a good political movie, but that’s one on a rather long CV. I’d think that not noticing that women have relationships with each other is a little out of touch, and I’d also be damned surprised if more than 5% of the movies George Clooney has been in would pass the Mo’ Movie Measure.
The Hollywood he praises is the voice of rich, it’s racist, misogynist, homophobic, for a start, and the fact that it occasionally nominates ‘issue’ films doesn’t make that any less true.
Oh and if we’re going to talk about specifics it wasn’t Hollywood that was talking about civil rights when it wasn’t popular. It was normal people who gave enough of a shit to try and fight back. Some of them died, and when Hollywood got round to making a movie about that – a ground breaking 25 years later, it was about as accurate as you’d expect.
Pingback: feminist blogs
mmm…. a bit reminiscent of Team America, wouldn’t you say? sigh.
I haven’t watched the Academy Awards for years. Never been happier. And judging by the speech quoted above, I haven’t missed anything important — it’s the same ol’ “The Rich And Famous Backslapping Each Other” phonyfest.
Why listen to Clooney praising his coterie of the overprivileged? If we want better movies, we have to make them ourselves. Seriously.
You don’t need Hollywood to make political films — in fact, you SHOULDN’T let Hollywood stand in your way when making political films.
Just sayin’.
i guess i understood clooney’s speech to be more sarcstic:
“you call us ‘out of touch’, and you have for a long time, yet the values that hollywood has espoused since ‘gone with the wind’ are values everyone supports now, so you might want to think twice about who’s really out of touch.”
your point about how hollywood hasn’t been particularly progressive is right on, of course, but i thought clooney was trying to be non-elitist and non-better-than-the-unwashed, by saying that those accusations by others were unfounded, not by agreeing that he really was out of touch and proud of it.
yeah, what Polymath said…
Only a few days ago, someone–in the context of something I don’t even recall–commented on my blog about Hollywood’s “tolerance.” What a joke. Hollywood is one of the capitals of bigotry toward just about everybody.
That quotation from Clooney is somewhat annoying, considering the hypocrisy involved.
I thought the message of Good Night, and Good Luck. was that people, and the media, need to stand up and fight back when the government behaves like a bunch of criminals.
I’m thinking Leiberman actually doesn’t support that.
I hope Clooney was being sarcastic, because his speech got on my nerves, too. Particularly since I had read in this very space just last month about the deliberate “bleaching” of Earthsea by the Sci-Fi Channel. Yes, Hollywood is just soooooo enlightened. That’s why a couple of years back, most of the audience at the awards applauded Elia Kazan. It’s why Roman Polanski continues to be supported despite his crime. Why everyone still loves Woody Allen. Why there are “Geisha parties” for moguls and their buddies. It’s why films like the execreble Bringing Down the House still get made like clockwork.
Oh, and the deification of the skeletal actress who must be retired from films by the age of forty so leading men the same age can continue to have their egos sopped by having on-screen romances with twenty-year-olds ? Oh, yes. That’s such an ideal to hold up before America to show us all how enlightened we could be.
Feh.
He makes it sounds like Hollywood deserves a cookie for treating people as human.
I think I’m slowly becoming more of a radical, because I don’t think he deserves the cookie.
Yay for Hollywood treating people as people! And simultaneously as commodities. Woo! … yeah, no cookie.
I don’t think Clooney was being sarcastic, though I do think he took on the term “out of touch” ironicly and not seriously. I don’t believe he meant that Hollywood was seriously “out of touch”. I’m also stunned at such bitterness towards Clooney, who in his actions has genuinely put his money where his mouth is by creating a production company dedicated to films with a progressive theme. Sadly, even going after Joe McCarthey isn’t as obvious as some on the left may assume. Quite bizarrely, McCarthy has been exhumed and lionized by the right-wing. More to the point, that movie clearly wasn’t about Joe McCarthey.
Yes, Hollywood can be very self-congratlatory and deserves derision when it is. Jon Stewert’s “and none of those things were ever a problem again” quip seemed quite on point after the “Films discuss social issues” montage. But I don’t think Clooney was being self-congratlatory there as much as he was being genuinely defensive against an all too frequent attack against all progressives.
He wasn’t saying everything the entertainment industry does is wonderful. I find it bizarre to attack him for the crimes of the Sci-Fi Channel or Big Business big-wigs who own movie companies.
I don’t think Clooney was being sarcastic, though I do think he took on the term “out of touch” ironicly and not seriously. I don’t believe he meant that Hollywood was seriously “out of touch”. I’m also stunned at such bitterness towards Clooney, who in his actions has genuinely put his money where his mouth is by creating a production company dedicated to films with a progressive theme. Sadly, even going after Joe McCarthey isn’t as obvious as some on the left may assume. Quite bizarrely, McCarthy has been exhumed and lionized by the right-wing. More to the point, that movie clearly wasn’t about Joe McCarthey.
Yes, Hollywood can be very self-congratlatory and deserves derision when it is. Jon Stewert’s “and none of those things were ever a problem again” quip seemed quite on point after the “Films discuss social issues” montage. But I don’t think Clooney was being self-congratlatory there as much as he was being genuinely defensive against an all too frequent attack against all progressives.
He wasn’t saying everything the entertainment industry does is wonderful. I find it bizarre to attack him for the crimes of the Sci-Fi Channel or Big Business big-wigs who own movie companies. He was speaking out about those who still view the entertainment industry as an art. No, it is not everyone. But it is much too cynical to condemn the enterprise in its entirity because of some of what it has become. Film can still be a powerful medium to convey an important message. As can fame. No, it doesn’t make these people better than us, but Clonney didn’t say that it did. For goodness sake, lets focus our anger on those who do wrong. Not those who some may perceive as not doing enough good.
How many among us have dedicated our lives to working only for progressive causes? There are some, and they deserve our praise. But does that make the rest of us inferior or generally deficient? Of course. And I say that as someone who does work for a non-profit cultural organization. I’m proud that I can make a living giving back to the community and elevating our cultural lives. But I don’t think that makes me morally superior to someone who doesn’t.
Nevertheless, lets fully look at Clooney’s CV. He’s been in The Thin Red Line, Three Kings, Fail Safe, Good Night, and Good Luck, and Syrianna since 1998. That’s 5 movies with a political message. Compared to 8 major roles in that time in movies which did not have a political message. Frankly, that seems like an awfully good percentage to me.
BStu:
Whatever enlightenment Clooney describes or represents, he is the exception, not the rule, in the business. I think that’s worth remembering.
His industry has a hell of a long way to go. I don’t remember him mentioning that, and if he wants to hold it up as some kind of standard, I don’t see how I’m attacking him. He implied that a tiny corner of his industry represents the whole industry, and is some kind of gold standard. I’m saying that he’s wrong. I didn’t say he was responsible for fixing everything wrong. I said that he failed to see the whole picture, or at least failed to acknowledge the whole picture.
Somehow, I have no doubt that he will weather my egregious “attack.”
hollywood doesn’t have a clue, they are so out of touch with the average person they don’t know what most people would like to see, of course many people go and see all the crap they put out because they see all the hype on the tv and newspapers blarring how good this movie is, and once you paid the money your stuck if the movie is junk.
hollywood has their own propaganda to push just like the news media and such. their images are used to tell people how you are supposed to look and act, what is supposed to be important, what is not, what shows you are a man, or woman, what is supposed to be fun and normal, when in fact it is just the oppisite.
how people really are is conveyed in the movies, trouble is it absolutly doesn’t represent at all the way people are, or they exaggerate how people are. and I personally don’t watch academy awards or anyother awards.
why? because who decides who is the best actor actress etc? isn’t it the rich, friends of each other? maybe you didn’t treat the future judge right and he put you down a notch, or maybe you did alot of favors for someone who is a judge that year. also I think it is sick when the rich and famous are more concerned about getting their egos stroked then about making good movies, who are living it up thinking that all amercans are living it up or should be and if they aren’t living it up what is wrong with that american being poor?, or that americans should look to them as a role model. role model to what?
they have done absolutly nothing to make my life or my friends lives better, doctors can make life better, engineers make life better (hopfully) farmers who grow good quality stuff the most people can afford, companies who create jobs with decent wages and who contribute as little to pollution and other enviromental damage as possible, those who make very useful produces such as defiberlators, drugs that combat disease (I know they have their corruptions too but where would we be without them?).
tho I do enjoy a good movie when I can find it, I find that I am watching most of the time are reruns of movies and shows that are 30 or more years old, a time period where they required more creativity since they didn’t have special affects to fall back on. and all that sexual hoopla was kept out since it didn’t even apply to the drama unfolding.
I liked george clooney in the perfect storm and the peacekeeper somewhat. I saw him in ocean eleven, but didn’t really particularly like that movie too much. many times the rich and famous are so busy enjoying their money, or dealing with divorces they have no time to evaluate the industry they are a part of and thus they don’t see the faults, or it could be a case of I benefit from this so I will close my eyes to the serious faults of my industry or whatever.
RR
Let’s look at the context though:
He was speaking to an auditorium full of Hollywood people on the night that Hollywood congratulates itself for existing. He was also speaking during a time when Hollywood in under organized attack from the right for existing. Sure, his speech was self-congratalatory and he’s not a perfect human being and Hollywood is definitely not filled with perfect human beings, but for that moment I thought his speech was spot-on.
His and Witherspoon’s were the best of the night.
Amen! I was thinking the same thing about Clooney.
He should only spout out words from a script. Other than that, he should shut up.
One thing that some may not be aware of – Clooney was the first to receive an award, straight after Jon Stewart’s introduction. Stewart made the comment that Hollywood was out of touch, in terms of pushing the envelope too much (or at least that was how I took it), as well as criticising many in the room for being public supporters of the Democrats (saying tonight was the first time many would have voted for a winner, etc – not that there is anything wrong with criticising people for supporting the Dems, but I don’t think Stewart was suggesting they ought to be turning their attentions further left…).
So Clooney’s comments were in the context of some pretty reactionary stuff from Stewart, and obviously wasn’t the usual rehearsed oscar acceptance speech but were made off the cuff.
Also, he received the oscar for Syriana, not Good Night and Good Luck, if that makes any difference.
I’m enjoying reading this conversation though, having been a long time reader of Maia’s blog :-)
“not that there is anything wrong with criticising people for supporting the Dems, but I don’t think Stewart was suggesting they ought to be turning their attentions further left…”
I’m very out of touch myself with US media culture, so please forgive the question: I’ve been under the impression the past couple of years that a lot of lefties *like* Jon Stewart, and that he frequently goes after Bush & the Republicans in general on his programme. Have I got that all wrong?
Also, regarding Clooney: yeah, if you’re a real-life radical, his work is probably going to seem pretty milquetoast. But for many people, he represents a position that is shockingly far left. Not that we then should all jump up and down and claim his films are therefore unequivocally Good Things, or that we shouldn’t be critical of them, or him. But seriously, I don’t think he’s a hypocrite simply because he’s not going as far out on a limb as I personally wish someone that mainstream just for once would. It seems perfectly possible to me that he’s sincere in the political positions he’s taking, even if to me they may seem naive.
And as for the “he should stick to scripts and otherwise shut up”–yeah, right, only people who say what we think they should ought to have the right to speak. Isn’t it the Right wing who are always bleating on about how celebrities shouldn’t air their political views?
To be honest Crys T, I’m on the other side of the world (NZ) and didn’t even know who Jon Stewart (beyond his face being vaguely familiar) until I saw the first bit of the Oscars the other night, so I’m not aware of his politics but just took his speech as he said it. It really pissed me off! Whether his politics are normally further left or not, I had the impression he was really trying to shore up his role as Oscar host (his first time after all, I think?) by not seeming left, although being very liberal on social issues.
I took some of Stewart’s remarks as a “gentle teasing between friends” kind of thing, and others as that deadpan mocking thing that he does (based on what I saw of his show when it was on here in Australia) – when he makes a po-faced rightwing statement, in a context making it clear that it’s not meant to be taken seriously.
crys:
“Isn’t it the Right wing who are always bleating on about how celebrities shouldn’t air their political views?”
Yes, sometimes followed by some version of “Why don’t you get a REAL job?” – which can quite funny if coming from a rightwing newspaper columnist or TV media commentator. Uh-uh, like *that* is a real job and acting isn’t.
I’m frankly stunned at the casual disrespect being doled out by some in this thread to the arts and those who make their living by it. Frankly, I find any arguement about whose career is “worthy” and whose isn’t to be quite repugnent. We enjoy a varied and prodigious culture in the “Western” world that I suspect most to all posters here are coming from. Not everyone will be healers or farmers. Nor should they be, nor do they need to be. The idea that any chosen profession is functionally morally inferior is extremely naive and disrespectful. If actors do not make the cut, what of painters or sculptors? How about writers and poets? Are you suggested that one’s compensation is inversely related to one’s worthiness as a human being? That’s startlingly dangerous reasoning. I would rather judge a man or woman by the character they demonstrate. Not by the supposed worthiness of their profession. Frankly, that strikes me as akin to thinking I’m a better and more worthwhile person because I’m a college educated professional rather than a janitor or garbage man. That’s hardly the case. Life has dealt me these cards and I’m happy with who I am, but I’d never deign to think I’m a better person than someone who works what some deride as a menial profession. Our society needs them and it needs me right where we are.
Art does give back to people. At its best, it enriches and informs our lives. Even at its most trivial, it can still provide entertainment and humor, diversions we should not be so quick to demean. Just because you may feel better for denouncing television doesn’t mean it cannot have a place in our world. We should not indulge in such elitism to think that we are a better class of human than any other group. Even progressive celebrities.
BStu, I am an artist. I guess following your theory that nobody should criticize one speech by one actor, I’m a self-hating artist. You know, like whenever Amp criticizes certain particulars of Israeli policy, he’s a self-hating Jew.
Also, I never said that Clooney or any other actor had no right to speak, just in case there’s any confusion about that. Neither am I obligated to just nod my head and grin in agreement if I happen to think that he’s talking out his ass.
Please.
For the international readers: Jon Stewart is U.S. television’s most prominent liberal satirist. Polls show that people who watch his program are more accurately informed about politics and world affairs than those who get their information from “legit” U.S. news shows. His schtik involves exposing conservative lunacy and deflating the self-important. Clooney was making his speech in the face of regular assaults on “out of touch” “Liberal” Hollywood by the papers and tv networks; the fact that Hollywood movies are indeed racist, misogynist, and homophobic shows how far Right the media that denounces Hollywood, and the radio shows that attack Clooney in particular, are.
That said, I’m very glad someone made the point that gestural progressivism doesn’t measure up to actually organizing for change. The only point I want to contest in Maia’s post is the passage contrasting “Hollywood” with “normal people,” which is a distinction the Right uses all the time. Of course people in the film industry were supporting civil rights in the Thirties when it wasn’t popular; that’s part of what got so many of them into trouble in the Fifties.
Clooney’s self-congratulatory tone, I think, was particularly hard to take in the context of that awful movie that won Best Picture.
Profound apologies if this is an unnecessary clarification, but I just recalled that “liberal” in Australia doesn’t mean “center-left” like it does in North America. “Up” here, “liberal” is associated with the politics of social-welfare Democrats, like LBJ and FDR. Republicans in 1988 pretty much succeeded in turning it into a pejorative . . .
And, with an opposing viewpoint, here’s George Cloony:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0313-26.htm
Highlights of the column include one of my favorite lines ever, “. . . it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, “We were misled.” It makes me want to shout, “Fuck you, you weren’t misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic.””
What BStu said. Just visiting this site (I’ve been getting a lot of hits from your reference to my bell hooks summary), and enjoying it.
Wasn’t the academy awards where Michael Moore made his anti-Iraq war statement? Regardless of what one thinks of the war, or of Moore personally, I think we can all agree that that was just about him being an elitist snob, akin to George Clooney. These Hollywood types can preach egalitarianism all they want, but until they start practicing it, I’m not going to believe that they mean any word they say. Ditto for racial and/or homosexuality issues. I’m not sure that I agree with this blog writer’s stated objective of “ending capitalism”, as I think that there are benefits to a capitalist economy for all, however we definitely have common ground in our annoyance at Clooney right now. Also, just as an aside – it’s annoying to see girls drool over him, or any other cocky annoying guy for that matter. From the perspective of a modest man, that is obnoxious to watch, but perhaps I’m just envious that I’m not as attractive as him. So yeah, maybe I have some personal bias there, but still seeing girls get annoyed at his speech too makes me feel like it’s not just my bias speaking… no, his speech really was that annoying. I have nothing against people being progressive, I just think it’s annoying for one to wear it on their sleeve. It’s equally annoying to see conservatives wear moral issues on their sleeves too, though. So yeah, everyone can be annoying in their own ways I guess. Ultimately, we need to learn to work together in a more humble way I believe, and tell Hollywood to f*** off, they can go be “out of the mainstream” somewhere else, not in my living room.
Yup .
I don’t agree.
Why? What ultimately annoys me about conservatives is that I think they’re wrong, not that they speak out about what they think is important.