Article - Sydney Morning Herald - January 1st, 2007
Celebrity Alone Won't Get You Far
William McInnes
Sydney Morning Herald
1st January 2007
A celebrity, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is someone who has the condition of being much talked about; of being famous, notorious. That covers a lot of people. Just as well, because there are lots of causes out there in need of a celebrity to support them.
The effectiveness of having a celebrity espouse a cause is often double-edged. It may garner publicity, but does it merely serve to increase the celebrity of The Celebrity at the cost of the cause?
I recently caught a taxi and I had to sit through 50 minutes of the cabbie's views on "the hangin' of this Saddam Hussein fella". The thing that moved Warren the cabbie most wasn't the moral greyness of the death penalty, the gruesome salivation of various telly talking heads at Saddam's last fuzzy video images. Questions of the legality of our nation's involvement in the war, the threat of weapons of mass destruction (remember them?) or the loss of civilian life hadn't set Warren off; it was these "bloody tools off the film and telly telling me what to think".
I must admit that I have on occasion been described as a celebrity myself - always in a rather second-hand, jumble-stall type of way. So, as I remember the indignant Warren, I try to put this issue into perspective.
Academic critics, political proponents and institutional representatives are taken seriously, but by and large celebrity opponents and proponents are subject to personal vitriol and disdain. Bono wears his funny coloured glasses, and Brad and Angelina can pout in solidarity with whatever cause they choose to grace yet they are dismissed.
Celebrities are good for reading about their private lives and tribulations, and selling stuff we undoubtedly need, such as cosmetics and undies. But once a celebrity steps down from the rarefied realm of being famous, of being a movie star, or singer or, indeed, "someone off the telly", they become a celebrity who soils himself with a little too much reality. They become a "tool".
But is that fair? Being famous doesn't rule out having an opinion, doesn't mean that you can't have an intelligent and considered argument to communicate. The problem is that some celebrity folk don't understand that being a celebrity doesn't guarantee you are intelligent and considered.
A famous friend of mine once told me she had as much right to be taken seriously on the subject of Australia's policy on illegal immigrants and refugees as the Prime Minister because she paid 10 times as much tax as John Howard and she paid all that was due without any qualms or complaints.
Her point was that she was a rich celebrity who put a lot of money back into the hands of John Howard's Government and, like any other Australian, she should have a say how that money was spent. Once every three years wasn't enough. She felt that she should still have the right to vent her views and not be derided as an airhead with nothing at stake but her image.
Her reasoning may be a little high-handed, but there is a crazy dollar-for-value logic at work that even the Prime Minister might grudgingly admire.
But paying more tax doesn't mean your opinion is more important then the next citizen's. I don't think democracy works like that. If you are famous for having certain physical features, a quirk of birth deemed "royal", a nice voice or an ability to look good without most of your clothes, simply turning up to a rally or adding your name to a list shouldn't guarantee credibility.
Coherent argument and commitment should do that.
It takes some courage for committed celebrities to add their names to a cause.
Thirty-five years ago a group of Australian TV and pop performers recorded the legendary "It's Time" commercial for Gough Whitlam and the Australian Labor Party - a first for celebrity activism in Australia. It was a success, but many of them paid a price. The conservative forces that employed them punished stars such as Bobby Limb.
Indeed, it is ironic that as some of their careers abruptly ended, the man they supported became a celebrity worthy enough to sell pasta sauce and fax machines.
The growing presence of celebrities as sweeteners for important causes is an indicator of how much our society has become image-driven. Celebrity is created by the media and the public - a partnership and a service. Media outlets by and large serve the public; they give the punters what they want.
It follows that celebrity is also an indication of an indulged society. More leisure hours, more affluence, more time to spend flipping through magazines, on websites or watching television shows about people who are simply famous. Famous for films, songs, the ability to hit balls further than anyone else and, yes, their views on a cause.
Whatever Warren the cabbie may think about celebrities, we'd all better get used to them because for every cause there will be a celebrity attached. It's up to us to judge the worth of the argument and not the glow of the star.
William McInnes's latest book is Cricket Kings (Hachette Livre).
William McInnes
Sydney Morning Herald
1st January 2007
A celebrity, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is someone who has the condition of being much talked about; of being famous, notorious. That covers a lot of people. Just as well, because there are lots of causes out there in need of a celebrity to support them.
The effectiveness of having a celebrity espouse a cause is often double-edged. It may garner publicity, but does it merely serve to increase the celebrity of The Celebrity at the cost of the cause?
I recently caught a taxi and I had to sit through 50 minutes of the cabbie's views on "the hangin' of this Saddam Hussein fella". The thing that moved Warren the cabbie most wasn't the moral greyness of the death penalty, the gruesome salivation of various telly talking heads at Saddam's last fuzzy video images. Questions of the legality of our nation's involvement in the war, the threat of weapons of mass destruction (remember them?) or the loss of civilian life hadn't set Warren off; it was these "bloody tools off the film and telly telling me what to think".
I must admit that I have on occasion been described as a celebrity myself - always in a rather second-hand, jumble-stall type of way. So, as I remember the indignant Warren, I try to put this issue into perspective.
Academic critics, political proponents and institutional representatives are taken seriously, but by and large celebrity opponents and proponents are subject to personal vitriol and disdain. Bono wears his funny coloured glasses, and Brad and Angelina can pout in solidarity with whatever cause they choose to grace yet they are dismissed.
Celebrities are good for reading about their private lives and tribulations, and selling stuff we undoubtedly need, such as cosmetics and undies. But once a celebrity steps down from the rarefied realm of being famous, of being a movie star, or singer or, indeed, "someone off the telly", they become a celebrity who soils himself with a little too much reality. They become a "tool".
But is that fair? Being famous doesn't rule out having an opinion, doesn't mean that you can't have an intelligent and considered argument to communicate. The problem is that some celebrity folk don't understand that being a celebrity doesn't guarantee you are intelligent and considered.
A famous friend of mine once told me she had as much right to be taken seriously on the subject of Australia's policy on illegal immigrants and refugees as the Prime Minister because she paid 10 times as much tax as John Howard and she paid all that was due without any qualms or complaints.
Her point was that she was a rich celebrity who put a lot of money back into the hands of John Howard's Government and, like any other Australian, she should have a say how that money was spent. Once every three years wasn't enough. She felt that she should still have the right to vent her views and not be derided as an airhead with nothing at stake but her image.
Her reasoning may be a little high-handed, but there is a crazy dollar-for-value logic at work that even the Prime Minister might grudgingly admire.
But paying more tax doesn't mean your opinion is more important then the next citizen's. I don't think democracy works like that. If you are famous for having certain physical features, a quirk of birth deemed "royal", a nice voice or an ability to look good without most of your clothes, simply turning up to a rally or adding your name to a list shouldn't guarantee credibility.
Coherent argument and commitment should do that.
It takes some courage for committed celebrities to add their names to a cause.
Thirty-five years ago a group of Australian TV and pop performers recorded the legendary "It's Time" commercial for Gough Whitlam and the Australian Labor Party - a first for celebrity activism in Australia. It was a success, but many of them paid a price. The conservative forces that employed them punished stars such as Bobby Limb.
Indeed, it is ironic that as some of their careers abruptly ended, the man they supported became a celebrity worthy enough to sell pasta sauce and fax machines.
The growing presence of celebrities as sweeteners for important causes is an indicator of how much our society has become image-driven. Celebrity is created by the media and the public - a partnership and a service. Media outlets by and large serve the public; they give the punters what they want.
It follows that celebrity is also an indication of an indulged society. More leisure hours, more affluence, more time to spend flipping through magazines, on websites or watching television shows about people who are simply famous. Famous for films, songs, the ability to hit balls further than anyone else and, yes, their views on a cause.
Whatever Warren the cabbie may think about celebrities, we'd all better get used to them because for every cause there will be a celebrity attached. It's up to us to judge the worth of the argument and not the glow of the star.
William McInnes's latest book is Cricket Kings (Hachette Livre).
posted by WilliamWatch at 3:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home