No Applause, Please

by Lady Liberty
02/19/2003

In years past, it wasn't uncommon for a celebrity to endorse an automobile or a cigarette brand, and stars often donated their time and fame to various charities. Of course, a few of the famous have also long been outspoken in their politics, but that was relatively rare. Movie studios and record labels placed a high premium on their stars' public image, and didn't want to chance an unpopular opinion alienating all those potential ticket or record buyers. Pitching a popular car, or leaning suavely in a doorway while smoking a cigarette, was different. But like the times of cigarette ads on TV, and for good or for ill, those more circumspect days are long gone.

Today, celebrities commit crimes and experience no public censure whatsoever. In fact, many see their box office cachet grow following their courtroom appearances. Stars who use drugs or who have extramarital affairs still get job offers and are even defended by some fans. Freely asserting a political opinion, even an unpopular one, now carries little professional risk The notion that only overwhelmingly negative publicity can be less than positive has opened the floodgates, and the stars now feel just as free as anyone else to open their mouths and insert an expensively shod foot.

Certainly, celebrities are as protected under the First Amendment as are the rest of us. They don't need anyone's permission to have or share their opinions, and they shouldn't need it. Celebrities are, however, often just as misinformed as the less famous. Again, that doesn't stop plenty of people from knowing what they think. The difference, however, is that very few people get the media attention that stars do with virtually every pronouncement they choose to publicly make. Still, the First Amendment applies, and if someone wants to say something foolish in front of thousands or millions of people, they have every right to do so.

For example, award-winning actor Ed Harris, speaking before a crowd of abortion rights activists on January 21, said that George W. Bush was less than a man because he was against abortion. Harris also freely admitted that he believed his status as an actor might help bring more people onto the pro-choice side of the abortion debate. Now I personally know a few rather effeminate men who are staunchly in favor of abortion rights. I also know a couple of men no one would dare suggest were less than manly who are firmly anti-abortion. It seems to me that "manliness" has less to do with such viewpoints than Harris might prefer. Still, in his statements, Harris was simply engaging in a debate wherein the primary tactics were insults and rallying cries, and he's far from the first to choose such a strategy. Essentially harmless in the long run, right?

Julia Roberts, speaking publicly during the presidential campaign of 2000, was all doe-eyed innocence when she proclaimed that "Republican" could be found in the dictionary between the words "reptile" and "repugnant" . That's quite a bit more clever than Harris' repartée (do you supposed she relied on a scriptwriter for those words?), but still merely an offense composed of insults. Sticks and stones, yes?

Recently, the anti-gun George Clooney (coincidentally a great friend of Roberts') raised more than a few eyebrows when he personally attacked NRA President and Oscar® winning actor Charlton Heston by making fun of his Alzheimer's diagnosis. Some people were incensed; Clooney was unrepentant. Heston himself made light of the matter by saying he'd made it through World War II and he'd make it through this attack as well. So it's over and done with, isn't it?

The online news service WorldNetDaily, which frequently runs opinion polls on its website, ran a poll in connection with Clooney's comments. One of the answers respondants could choose was: Who cares what George Clooney says? I had my mouse pointer over that button and was ready to click when I suddenly realized something very important: Lots of people care what George Clooney says.

There are some famous people who are both celebrities and knowledgeable in one field or another. Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve, both of whom have done a great deal of research into the conditions that affect them, have opinions about Parkinson's disease and paralysis that are extremely well-informed and doubtless of value. Ted Danson has long been personally active, and become expert, in beach clean-up programs. But while George Clooney has turned out to be a hell of a director (see Lady Liberty's movie review of Confessions of a Dangerous Mind), I've never heard that he's any kind of an expert on the Second Amendment. Despite that fact, plenty of people take Clooney's words to heart whether he's speaking about direction (something he clearly knows plenty about) or marriage (something he's admitted he's "really bad at") or civil liberties ( well, he's a good director).

Just as many people either can't or won't separate the informed opinion from the uninformed, many also assume that the position taken by someone who's famous is the right position to take. Perhaps this is because so many are too lazy to do the research involved in establishing an informed opinion of their own and adopt one that's widely publicized instead. Or maybe it's because they confuse admiring a star's talent with admiring the star himself. Regardless of the rationale behind it, there are plenty of people out there who don't question it if a star says it. And therein lies the problem.

A group calling itself Citizens Against Celebrity Pundits has started an online petition in the wake of the widely publicized letter, signed by 100 celebrities, that takes a strong position against any military action against Iraq. The petition says that wealthy celebrities are "abusing their status" and that those celebrities have no clear understanding of "what we support". The petition also accuses celebrities of using their fame and wealth to make their personal issues known to the rest of America while the rest of us have no such opportunity. It's planned for the petition (which already has well over 10,000 signatures) to be delivered to actors Martin Sheen and Mike Farrell who were instrumental in putting together the letter against intervention in Iraq.

The petition is a fine idea, but it doesn't address the real problem. The fact is, Martin Sheen and Mike Farrell are against any war in Iraq. They have every right to their opinion, and they have every right to express that opinion in any way they see fit. The real problem is much more difficult to address than simply suggesting they have a bigger, better soapbox than do the rest of us from which to speak. Harkening back to the WorldNetDaily poll: Who cares what stars think? We may not, but too many do. And how do we stop that from happening?

Perhaps our best hope is that those stars who have different opinions will also start to speak up. A few weeks ago, Patricia Heaton did when she walked out of an awards program she found offensive. Last week, Jane Russell said (in unfortunately graphic terms) that she was a conservative. Bo Derek has quietly supported George W. Bush since the presidential campaigns. Popular rumor also says that Bruce Willis is a Republican. (Mr. Willis has a movie coming out soon. It would be nice if we saw to it that it did well at the box office.)

On the other hand, it might also be fun to hit those stars with whom we disagree right where they live: ignore them. Publicity thrives on continued word of mouth, so ignore them and ignore what they say. In the world of the rich and famous, is there anything worse than that?

Lady Liberty