Stars Clooney, Jolie, Pitt, DiCaprio and Chedle Shine on Political Causes
Pamela Scott Shelton
June 23, 2007
Today, Hollywood is very outspoken about their politics. The question is, when we know more about a star’s political ideology than we know about their film roles, can they still be entertaining? At the height of the Vietnam Conflict, Jane Fonda, Barbarella (1968) turned politico, was photographed smiling and surrounded by happy North Vietnamese military personnel as she sat atop an enemy missile launcher. Fonda was making a statement. As the war drew to a close, people moved on, but the photograph haunted Fonda long after the 1975 evacuation of the last remaining American personnel from atop the roof of the American Embassy in Saigon. Eventually, Fonda apologized to the Vietnam vets for the statement that photograph made. It was clearly not the statement Fonda had intended it to be. While she had held fast in admitting she passionately disagreed with the Vietnam war, her actions as a young woman, whose star power drew attention to her cause, had tarnished her star power. The Vietnam vets made a responding statement when they held Fonda out as the personification of the lack of support, the humiliation they felt, and the emotional pain and suffering that they experienced as American soldiers returning home from a war zone. The photograph continues to be a divide between Vietnam vets and Fonda today; one about which Fonda has repeatedly expressed her regrets.
Now, we see the images of bright star power in the faces of George Clooney, Angelina Jolie and her partner, Brad Pitt, in the news not for their latest films, but for their political positions and statements. These actors have each made films supporting their personal; Clooney, in Syriana (2005), as well as a documentary about Darfur that he made from film footage made in Darfur when he and his father visited that country. The footage was later smuggled out of the country, and it shows the devastation of people who have no politics, but a strong will and desire to live in peace. Pitt starred alongside Cate Blanchett in Babel (2006), making several political statements in one film. First, emphasizing that we’re all players in the Middle East dynamics, and, second, a strong statement about Mexican immigrants. Angelina Jolie has become as well known for her philanthropy and ambassadorship of the world’s children as she has for her acting roles. Today, there are probably more people familiar with Jolie's humanitarian efforts than there are people who can say she won an Academy Award for Girl Interrupted. Jolie, who is currently on a PR tour for her new film, A Mighty Heart (2007), a story based on real life emotional events and loss in the life of Marianne Pearl, widow to the murdered Wall Street Journalist Daniel Pearl. The film makes strong political statements and reflects the personal views of the key characters and actors.
Each of these actors support noble causes. Are they, like Fonda, surrendering the source of their star power to their cause? We saw it happen with Fonda, and more recently with Janeane Garofalo who is very outspoken on Iraq and who has now faded from both the news and star scenes. We saw it happen with the band The Dixie Chicks, when they made statements in support of their political views, which resulted in an adverse reaction among fans who went so far as to burn Dixie CDs. Later, the Chicks made a rock-u-rama about the experience, which was well received at the Sundance Film Festival. However, the Chicks soon discovered that after the festival, everyone went home and they were left with their political opinions, a rock-u-rama, and tarnished star power. They quickly went on the mend, promising fans the future would be one of good music and no politics. Which doesn’t mean they don’t have an opinion.
So far, Jolie and Pitt seem impervious to flack about their political ideologies. Jolie has demonstrated finesse in avoiding political controversy, while making strong statements in support of humanitarian initiatives. She has seemingly served as the inspiration for many other celebrities to begin to publicly pursue charitable interests, even if in somewhat of a less high profile way than Jolie. Will Jolie's star power diminish as she becomes more widely known for her humanitarian endeavors than her film entertainment? Jolie has said that she doesn’t mind being more recognized for her work with the United Nations and humanitarian causes than she is for her film work. Still, she readily acknowledges that it is the star power of her entertainment value that supports her philanthropy. Clooney has recently made statements in support of Barack Obama, but has publicly said, too, that current presidential hopefuls might not want his public support, indicating that he might be aware if not somewhat concerned with a tarnished star power. Pitt and Jolie have both so far declined to make a statement in favor of a presidential candidate. Perhaps a calculated choice by two stars who want to focus attention on important causes, and will want to benefit with support for those causes from whoever is elected president.
Perhaps the real test of whether or not the public will lose interest or support stars in their causes rests with how the stars go about expressing their public views. Don Cheadle, who appears in the new Oceans 13 (2007), used his star power to make a statement about genocide in Rwanda. The result Hotel Rwanda (2004), a powerful film and performance by Cheadle that not only conveyed the need to be concerned with what is happening in Africa, but was entertaining with great acting to hold the interest of movie goers who might have no understanding of, or no interest in politics at all. Hotel Rwanda is suspenseful, and has a lot of action and even if the viewer is oblivious to the politics, they are entertained. Hotel Rwanda was evidence of Cheadle’s far reaching acting breadth. His performance was flawless in the role of the lead character and hero, Paul Rusesabagina. Cheadle garnered support in his film and for his cause by enlisting the supporting star power of Joaquin Phoenix, Nick Nolte, Sophie Okonedo and others. Each actor gave outstanding performances in small but integral roles in the film.
Cheadle’s good friend and fellow Oceans actor, George Clooney received critical acclaim for Syriana, but the film was not as entertaining as movie goers needed it to be. From an entertainment perspective, Syriana and Babel run neck and neck on the low end of entertainment value.
In Blood Diamond (2006) Leonardo DiCaprio, like Cheadle, renders what is perhaps the most outstanding performance of his film career. Or at least one that stands next to The Aviator (2004) and Catch Me If You Can (2002). Each of these films are great entertainment, but in Blood Diamond, DiCaprio manages to shed light on the exploitation of Africa's natural resources by big industries and profiteers who have a disregard for and of humanitarian needs and the quality of life of African civilians. At the same time, like Cheadle, DiCaprio brings to the screen full entertainment value with his performance, right down to his convincing and smooth South African accent. Regardless of a movie goer's political opinions, the action and fast moving plot in this film gives it high entertainment value.
It takes skill and acumen for a star to balance their star power with their political views. A star’s political views, or how they go about expressing those views, can quickly distinguish the light that allows a star to shine on worthy causes. Cheadle and DiCaprio demonstrated it is possible to entertain and to bring to light important issues, and still be entertaining. Jolie has demonstrated that a subtle and elegant approach to very coarse and ugly problems works and goes far in bringing both attention and financial support to those problems. However, Jolie has lent her image to her political passions on film only on a limited basis. A Mighty Heart (2007), which has so far received critical acclaim, will be a true test of whether Jolie can pull off a Cheadle or DiCaprio.
Coming soon – Pamela Scott Shelton’s review of the film A Mighty Heart, starring Angelina Jolie.
Now, we see the images of bright star power in the faces of George Clooney, Angelina Jolie and her partner, Brad Pitt, in the news not for their latest films, but for their political positions and statements. These actors have each made films supporting their personal; Clooney, in Syriana (2005), as well as a documentary about Darfur that he made from film footage made in Darfur when he and his father visited that country. The footage was later smuggled out of the country, and it shows the devastation of people who have no politics, but a strong will and desire to live in peace. Pitt starred alongside Cate Blanchett in Babel (2006), making several political statements in one film. First, emphasizing that we’re all players in the Middle East dynamics, and, second, a strong statement about Mexican immigrants. Angelina Jolie has become as well known for her philanthropy and ambassadorship of the world’s children as she has for her acting roles. Today, there are probably more people familiar with Jolie's humanitarian efforts than there are people who can say she won an Academy Award for Girl Interrupted. Jolie, who is currently on a PR tour for her new film, A Mighty Heart (2007), a story based on real life emotional events and loss in the life of Marianne Pearl, widow to the murdered Wall Street Journalist Daniel Pearl. The film makes strong political statements and reflects the personal views of the key characters and actors.
Each of these actors support noble causes. Are they, like Fonda, surrendering the source of their star power to their cause? We saw it happen with Fonda, and more recently with Janeane Garofalo who is very outspoken on Iraq and who has now faded from both the news and star scenes. We saw it happen with the band The Dixie Chicks, when they made statements in support of their political views, which resulted in an adverse reaction among fans who went so far as to burn Dixie CDs. Later, the Chicks made a rock-u-rama about the experience, which was well received at the Sundance Film Festival. However, the Chicks soon discovered that after the festival, everyone went home and they were left with their political opinions, a rock-u-rama, and tarnished star power. They quickly went on the mend, promising fans the future would be one of good music and no politics. Which doesn’t mean they don’t have an opinion.
So far, Jolie and Pitt seem impervious to flack about their political ideologies. Jolie has demonstrated finesse in avoiding political controversy, while making strong statements in support of humanitarian initiatives. She has seemingly served as the inspiration for many other celebrities to begin to publicly pursue charitable interests, even if in somewhat of a less high profile way than Jolie. Will Jolie's star power diminish as she becomes more widely known for her humanitarian endeavors than her film entertainment? Jolie has said that she doesn’t mind being more recognized for her work with the United Nations and humanitarian causes than she is for her film work. Still, she readily acknowledges that it is the star power of her entertainment value that supports her philanthropy. Clooney has recently made statements in support of Barack Obama, but has publicly said, too, that current presidential hopefuls might not want his public support, indicating that he might be aware if not somewhat concerned with a tarnished star power. Pitt and Jolie have both so far declined to make a statement in favor of a presidential candidate. Perhaps a calculated choice by two stars who want to focus attention on important causes, and will want to benefit with support for those causes from whoever is elected president.
Perhaps the real test of whether or not the public will lose interest or support stars in their causes rests with how the stars go about expressing their public views. Don Cheadle, who appears in the new Oceans 13 (2007), used his star power to make a statement about genocide in Rwanda. The result Hotel Rwanda (2004), a powerful film and performance by Cheadle that not only conveyed the need to be concerned with what is happening in Africa, but was entertaining with great acting to hold the interest of movie goers who might have no understanding of, or no interest in politics at all. Hotel Rwanda is suspenseful, and has a lot of action and even if the viewer is oblivious to the politics, they are entertained. Hotel Rwanda was evidence of Cheadle’s far reaching acting breadth. His performance was flawless in the role of the lead character and hero, Paul Rusesabagina. Cheadle garnered support in his film and for his cause by enlisting the supporting star power of Joaquin Phoenix, Nick Nolte, Sophie Okonedo and others. Each actor gave outstanding performances in small but integral roles in the film.
Cheadle’s good friend and fellow Oceans actor, George Clooney received critical acclaim for Syriana, but the film was not as entertaining as movie goers needed it to be. From an entertainment perspective, Syriana and Babel run neck and neck on the low end of entertainment value.
In Blood Diamond (2006) Leonardo DiCaprio, like Cheadle, renders what is perhaps the most outstanding performance of his film career. Or at least one that stands next to The Aviator (2004) and Catch Me If You Can (2002). Each of these films are great entertainment, but in Blood Diamond, DiCaprio manages to shed light on the exploitation of Africa's natural resources by big industries and profiteers who have a disregard for and of humanitarian needs and the quality of life of African civilians. At the same time, like Cheadle, DiCaprio brings to the screen full entertainment value with his performance, right down to his convincing and smooth South African accent. Regardless of a movie goer's political opinions, the action and fast moving plot in this film gives it high entertainment value.
It takes skill and acumen for a star to balance their star power with their political views. A star’s political views, or how they go about expressing those views, can quickly distinguish the light that allows a star to shine on worthy causes. Cheadle and DiCaprio demonstrated it is possible to entertain and to bring to light important issues, and still be entertaining. Jolie has demonstrated that a subtle and elegant approach to very coarse and ugly problems works and goes far in bringing both attention and financial support to those problems. However, Jolie has lent her image to her political passions on film only on a limited basis. A Mighty Heart (2007), which has so far received critical acclaim, will be a true test of whether Jolie can pull off a Cheadle or DiCaprio.
Coming soon – Pamela Scott Shelton’s review of the film A Mighty Heart, starring Angelina Jolie.
Print
Email
