Clooney's "courage"

George Clooney made more news at the Oscars than anyone else with his comments defending Hollywood's "out of touch" nature.

Here is the news-making part of Clooney's acceptance speech for best supporting actor for his work in the liberal propaganda piece Syriana:

And finally, I would say that, you know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. I think it's probably a good thing. We're the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasn't really popular. And we, you know, we bring up subjects. 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 a part of this Academy, proud to be part of this community, and proud to be out of touch.

While he is being lauded for his supposed bravery, he is being praised to the hilt for his comments, which were simply more elitism from a group of people with no more experience in politics, economics or foreign policy than I.

It may be news to Clooney, but there were countless people fighting for civil rights even before the "Academy" gave the Oscar to McDaniel. There were people dealing with AIDS before Hollywood began to wear ribbons and pat themselves on the back.

And that is what his speech is truly about - self-congratulations and self-inflation. Sure, Clooney makes millions of dollars for being a mediocre actor, but he wants to make a real impact on culture. Sure, he is dating and sleeping with a new woman each month, but he wants to leave a political legacy.

Hollywood is obsessed with its own self-importance. That cannot be satisfied with simply making quality entertainment: they must be influencing the opinions of everyone else.

On the vast majority of cases, the majority gets it right - if not immediately, eventually. But regardless of whether the mainstream of America is right or wrong on an issue, they will not be pushed in either direction by a pompous, elitists actor.

Elitism is the opposite of democracy. They make speech after speech, rant after rant about how Bush is trying to overturn our democracy and force us into a dictatorship, theocracy, etc. However, in reality, Hollywood, the Mainstream media, Academia are the ones who are pushing our nation away from the egalitarian system of governance.

The elites support judicial rule as opposed to legislative rule. They revel in being "out of touch" - viewing it, as Clooney does, as being automatically a positive thing. Sometimes being in disagreement with the majority is a good, brave thing, but sometimes it is an arrogant, self-servicing thing, especially when one has supporters who effectively control broadcast media.

Besides having a large platform from which to speak, what makes Clooney's opinion any more valuable than mine or yours. Many of these actors are college drop-outs, including Clooney, with little or no education and no real experience outside of the make-believe world in Hollywood.

We laugh at the commercials where some needs a doctor, someone steps forward to help and they ask him if he is a doctor. "No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night." We know that is ridiculous, yet no one laughs when Clooney, Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, etc. answer, "No, I am not a foreign policy expert, but I am a Hollywood star."

If we listen to Clooney, the majority of Academy voters are a better arbitrator of laws than the majority of the the American voters. I tend to fall in line with William F. Buckley who said that he would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than the Harvard faculty. I would go so far as to say, in reference to Clooney's remarks, I would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Los Angeles phone book than the Oscar voters.

UPDATE: Here's some facts from Newsbusters to counteract Clooney's assertion of the importance of Hollywood. Unless Hollywood was promoting AIDS awareness in the 70's, they were too late to be shouting above the whisper. Newsweek and Time ran AIDS stories in 1983. President Reagan was condemned for not "doing enough" to fight the disease. By June of 1983, ABC News did a story about the hype of AIDS becoming a problem. Oprah predicted millions of heterosexuals would be dead of AIDS by 1990, which happened to be the first year Hollywood produced a wide release AIDS movie, "Longtime Companion."

But never question how much they care, after all they wear ribbons that say so..or "shout" so.

UPDATE 2: Beautiful Atrocities asks an even better question of the supposed courage of Hollywood: "why, 5 years after 9/11, won't Hollywood bring up Islamofascism?"

UPDATE 3: It keeps getting worse for Clooney. The Corner takes their turn, noting that when McDaniel won her Oscar (for playing a slave who loved being a slave), she had to sit in the back with a table for just her and her escort.

Comments

[seeker]

I'm sure cinema has done some good things in the veins that cloony mentions. However, how many black actors got oscars since that first one?

And doing a few good things that are atypical doesn't excuse the far left bent of much of Hollywood, nor its fawning over such outright lies as Michael Moore's F-9/11 or other Hollywood propoganda films.

[Louis]

Gee, Aaron, just how cliched can you get with this populist rant? He must have really hit a nerve. All this whining about "elitists" ruining things is just sour graped, I think: you guys wish you had the podium he has. Oh, wait! You've got the Presidency and the Congress and the Supreme Court and thousands of tax-free pulpits and radio shows and Fox News, ad nauseum. I forgot: elitism is in the eye of the beholder.

btw: the first people doing anything about AIDS were gay people.

[Sam]

About AIDS - this is nonsense. Hollywood didn't do anything, and neither did Republicans. Or Democrats. The gay community was the first who did a damned thing about the disease. (I should note that [some] Christians were gleefully celebrating God's gay plague.)

I will never, ever, forgive Christianity for that nonsense. Rather than be compassionate, (some) Christians celebrated AIDS. Those Christians, everywhere, regardless of who they are, can go straight to hell.

As for Clooney, he's a douchebag. Why are you taking him so seriously? He's a windbag.

[Evil_Lonnie]

Lesbians actually have a lower rate of HIV/AIDS than heterosexuals of either gender... does that mean that they are the Chosen Ones? :)

[michael]

Regarding statement, "PROUD TO BE OUT OF TOUCH", writers and on-line expertise are needed to develop the following domains.

1. www.proudtobeoutoftouch.com

2. www.proudtobeintouch.com

Cheers,
michael@proudtobeoutoftouch.com

[Louis]

Clooney was reacting to the incessant and noisy clamor on the right to demonize and scapegoat Hollywood. The main accusation conservatives throw at anyone even slightly to the left of them is that liberals are "out of touch" with real Americans. Thus, Clooney was wearing the accusation as a badge of honor. If you think he's arrogant, consider the arrogance of rightests claiming to speak for ALL Americans. For the record, Hollywood is closer to my viewpoint, and that of millions of Americans, than King George and his court.

[Sam]

Louis makes an interesting point. The constant gamesmanship of conservatives - to play the victim when convenient, and then to turn around and play the majority - is annoying as all sin. You can't be both. Either the majority of Americans are with the conservatives and disgusted with Hollywood (which is hardly true), or the majority of Americans are Christian hating extremists. I think its difficult to have it both ways.

And these accusations that Hollywood is out of touch rings so stupid anyway. We all hate the majority of Hollywood movies. Everybody does. That's the nature of the beast.

[Aaron]

To answers or address all the points:

Honestly, I really don't care what Clooney said - I was among the vast majority of people who didn't care enough to watch the Oscars - I just wanted to dissect his idiotic rant about being "out of touch."

Republicans do hold a majority in both Houses and Supreme Court appointments (although it is still 5 to 4 liberal in most cases) as well as the Presidency, none of which is really speaking for conservatives too much these days.

I don't claim to speak for all Americans. I claim to speak for one American - me.

Unfortunately, the majority of Christians reacted badly to AIDS. But you also have to acknowledge the reason the gay community was the first to respond and speak about the issue was that it was affecting them disproportionately.

Hollywood (or at least Acadmey voters) are out of touch with American and the average movie goer for the most part. They nominate movies that no one sees or cares about. I don't think every blockbuster should win Best Picture - I mean Pearl Harbor was a blockbuster.

While G and PG movies outgross R rated movies, the vast majority of movies that continue to be made and promoted are graphic R movies. No one can deny there has been a dramatic shift in the movies produced and promoted by Hollywood and the ones that win awards compared with the 50's and 60's.

Also it just happens that virtually every movie nominated for major awards have some type of liberal agenda to them or support some cause identified with the left-wing of this country. That is no accident.

I agree that conservatives use both the victim and the majority card way to often. I did not mean to use any victim card in this post. But here is the partial explanation as to why one can be both the majority and a victim.

I think the majority of America would like to see more high quality, family friendly movies or at least movies with some type of redeeming value without being preached at (from either side). But while the majority of Americans feel this way, the vast majority of those in Hollywood, the media and academia view their platforms as rights to voice left-wing ideology.

I don't care what Clooney (or any other "star") has to say, but it just annoys me to read about and see him on the news spouting nonsense and then to hear the media fawn all over him about his courage.

I just find it annoying and even harmful that we are treated to every political pronouncement from people who have no idea what they are talking about and are expected to take it seriously. I don't take Clooney, Streisand, Moore, etc. seriously, but the media does and that is a problem.

[seeker]

I think Clooney has a good point that artists and other cultural leaders (like educators and politicians) need to sometimes do something OTHER than what is mainstream in order to counter societal wrongs or moral laziness. I think that the film industry has sometimes done that - artists are often notoriously anti-authoritarian, and sometimes the power structure needs a good challenge.

I also agree that some (many?) Christians have demonized Hollywood, in part because they've felt unrepresented, and in part because Hollywood has definitely had a liberal bias. But this may be the result of the decades of separatist theology which fundamentalists pursued. It hasn't been until the last 20 years that xians have re-engaged with the culture.

However, I also think that Clooney can't paint over the obvious liberal bias in Hollywood, or try to justify it's "out of step with the mainstream" stance with appeals to a few instances of choosing the high moral road.

The fact that Narnia (a movie I did not like, but obviously, many did) has made more money than all of the contenders for best picture combined says something - that what the public will pay for is not the same as what the media elites think is valuable. Now, Crash was a great movie - better than Narnia, in my opinion.

I think it is a valid criticism that Hollywood turns out a lot of crap, due in part to investors' desire for safe, formulaic movies, but also due to the fact that it is dominated by low quality, low morality, often preachy fringe-liberal drivel. There's a reason why pixar is kicking butt - it's creating high-quality, family films.

[Sam]

If you're so sick of Clooney getting attention Aaron, how can you tolerate all of the attention that J.J. Reddick gets?

Huzzah!

[seeker]

Who is JJ Reddick? Honestly, I have no idea.

[Louis]

Aaron says some stuff which simply must be challenged:

-Honestly, I really don't care what Clooney said - I was among the vast majority of people who didn't care enough to watch the Oscars - I just wanted to dissect his idiotic rant about being "out of touch."

You can't maintain you "really don't care" when you obviously do when you declare his acceptance speech an "idiotic rant." Really, what gives you the right to judge him like that?

-I don't claim to speak for all Americans. I claim to speak for one American - me.

Oh, come off it, Aaron, this is just dishonest. The whole tenor and substance of your rant is that Clooney doesn't speak for Americans, that they don't share his values, and THAT YOU DO. Otherwise, how could you presume to criticize him in our names?

-Unfortunately, the majority of Christians reacted badly to AIDS. But you also have to acknowledge the reason the gay community was the first to respond and speak about the issue was that it was affecting them disproportionately.

To say xians "reacted badly to AIDS" is putting it mildly. Xianity's reaction was to blame gays and declare we were getting what we deserved. And, of course, gays had to deal with it, but our reaction proved wrong the judgments of xians and other bigots that gays are just a bunch of frivilous sex-addicts who have nothing but negative effects on society. Gay run AIDS organizations were the first to address the epidemic and even helped non-gay patients while xians were still fulminating from their self-righteous pulpits.

-They nominate movies that no one sees or cares about.

Obviously wrong. NO ONE? I saw them and cared about them. So did millions of others. What gives you the right to generalize this way? Absurd. The nominations are supposed to be for excellence not popularity. If the great unwashed masses aren't interested in great films that's just too bad for them. If this is elitism, make the best of it: I'm a frank elitist when it comes to excellence as opposed to mediocrity and/or stupidity. I don't care if the film is xian or conservative, or atheist and liberal (I liked "Shadowlands" and "Ben-Hur" after all). Your argument is fallacious.

-While G and PG movies outgross R rated movies, the vast majority of movies that continue to be made and promoted are graphic R movies.

Really? What proof have you of this? From all I've heard about the business, filmmakers have to fight for R films precisely because studios want as wide an audience as possible.
Money is the name of the game, which is why most Hollywood product is crap: they aim for the lowest common denominator, trying to please a large audience (mostly teens). Adult films usually don't make for blockbusters.

The solution for you here is to ignore the Academy Awards if they displease you. Hollywood is mostly liberal, but their main philosophy is the Almighty Dollar. If conservatives want more conservative films they should finance them and support them at the box office. That's the American way.

[Aaron]

You got me on that one Sam. ;)

But if I saw Redick out there telling America how they should vote and why we should all listen to him because he is an All-American basketball player I would write the same sort of thing about him.

He gets attention, but he never tells me why his political POV is God's gift to our nation - that is the difference between him and Clooney.

But good point all the same!

seeker, read ESPN.com man! ;) Just kidding. He is an All-American basketball player for Duke.

[Louis]

Where did Clooney state "his political POV is God's gift to our nation"? Reference, please.

[Aaron]

I'm sorry Clooney would never reference a "God." You are correct.

[seeker]

Actually, he does mention God in interviews:

" I know, but they're usually so goddamn long I have to think of the ones that aren't, so... I'll have to think about this for a minute... what's your other question and I'll come up with it.
"

[Louis]

Pathetic.

[seeker]

Dammit, you don't like my humor?

[Louis]

No, Aaron's response.