CLOWNEY: PLAYING IT SAFE
by George Jonas
Benador Associates
March 8, 2006

At the Academy Awards last Sunday, actor George Clooney patted himself on
the back. Had he done so for his acting or his looks, he would have richly
deserved it. But Clooney patted himself on the back for his courage.

Sorry, old boy. Close, but no cigar. Actually, not even close.

Clooney, a fine actor and a handsome devil, took it into his head that it
was brave of him to participate in a movie that portrayed the late US
Senator Joe McCarthy as a monster. Yes, well, 50 years ago it would have
been brave. By last Sunday it was about the safest thing in the world. In
our days, a brave thing would be portraying the Wisconsin senator who saw a
Red under every bed as a flawed hero.

We'll leave it to historians whether such a portrayal would be accurate.
There's no question, though, that it would be brave. Ribbon-class brave, in
fact. Nor is there any question that Clooney wouldn't do it. That's why
we'll never know whether he would have been brave enough to participate in
a portrayal of McCarthy as a monster in 1954, when it could have cost him
his career. Perhaps he would have, but there's a better chance that back
then Clooney would have congratulated himself on his fierce anti-communism.
That's what most of Hollywood did ­ until the winds of fashion shifted.

The mainstream isn't invariably wrong ­ far from it ­ but it's invariably
mainstream. The establishment may change periodically, but it never changes
being the establishment. The trend-setters of society may feel differently
about things from one year to the next, but while they feel a certain way,
they tend to fall in line and give expression to their feelings in unison.
The way society feels about things in a given period is the ZEITGEIST, the
spirit of the times. It's the tide of fashion ­ and while brave people swim
against the tide, smart people don't.

Smart people outnumber brave people (appearances to the contrary
notwithstanding) but many like pretending that they're brave mavericks
rather than brainy conformists. Whether in show business or in academia,
cowardly lions, straight out of the Wizard of Oz, who always sniff the wind
before carefully pussyfooting in lockstep with each other, nevertheless try
to create the impression that they're marching to a different drummer.

I suppose marching to a different drummer is considered sexy. "I'm my own
person," a particularly timid academic insisted at lunch the other day,
making one of her colleagues titter. She was, in fact, the clone of every
fashionable person in her field. It was unlikely that she would have
recognized her own person if it fell on her.

Judging by last Sunday's awards show, this is the year of the pimp in
Hollywood. Some actors seemed ready to pat themselves on the back for their
courage in applauding pimps, or at least for applauding rappers who offer
accolades to pimps. Sorry, still no cigar. The Hollywood establishment may
demonize pimps one year and lionize them the next, but while it's smart to
be firmly for pimps when they're "in" and firmly against them when they're
"out," it isn't particularly brave.

Hollywood-types may like double-dipping ­ can't blame them, I suppose ­ but
expecting a medal for bucking the current while in fact swimming with the
tide is too much even for an industry famed for its creative accounting.
Clooney and his colleagues may have to settle for getting their Oscars for
acting rather than for acting up. Unless, of course, they consider
appearing in some bold movie that analyzes rather than vilifies Senator
McCarthy. But that would take courage, unlike apologizing for pimps, and I
doubt if Hollywood's left-leaning liberals have got what it takes.

Talking of left-leaning liberals, a CBC interviewer told me the other day
that, on this continent, I was marching to a different drummer. I replied
that I didn't think so. The expression "marching to a different drummer"
implies subscribing to a minority view. The main body marches to one
drummer, but a lone individual, or maybe a little fringe, marches to a
DIFFERENT one. That's what the phrase means.

But what would one call "the main body" in Stephen Harper's Canada, not to
mention George W. Bush's America? Both countries are one-person-one-vote
democracies. Harper and Bush are the elected (in Bush's case, re-elected)
leaders of their nations. Currently on this continent it's CBC interviewers
who are marching to a different drummer.

Printer-friendly version   Email this item to a friend