Search Observer-Reporter

Search Archive

10/26/2007 3:34 AM

Email this article • Print this article  

This article has been read 297 times.

There's an interesting essay in the Oct. 22 edition of The New Yorker by film critic David Denby on how Hollywood stars have lost the ineffable mystery that once surrounded them.

He contrasts our around-the-clock blogosphere and tabloid culture to the vastly more circumspect days of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, when star peccadilloes and foibles remained tightly guarded secrets, and, if a marquee name ended up in a tight fix, a publicity agent or studio honcho would swoop right in and solve the problem just like Tom Hagen did for the Corleones in "The Godfather."

Denby points out that, 60 years ago, no one was the wiser that Clark Gable wore false teeth, had bad breath, lived hard and was, basically, a flesh-and-blood mortal. If Gable were around today, there's a pretty good chance that not only would his dentition be snarkily dissected on Perez Hilton's celebrity gossip Web site (www.perezhilton.com), but the manufacturer of Gable's fake choppers also would be interviewed on "The Insider" and, eventually, Gable would be doing self-deprecating television ads for dentures in the same way that former U.S. Sen. Robert Dole was trumpeting Viagra a couple of years ago.

And speaking of Dole, another aspect of celebrity life that was once mostly kept out of the klieg lights was who contributed money to which political candidates. Thanks to campaign finance reform laws and the ease of Internet searching, that can now be uncovered with a couple of keystrokes.

Rate This Story:
1 the lowest - 5 the highest

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

Current rating:

Sure, the worlds of entertainment and politics have always been intertwined - Frank Sinatra was chummy with the Kennedys and, later, crossed the aisle to pal around with Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Charlie Chaplin was a friend of Upton Sinclair, the muckraking novelist who ran an unsuccessful populist campaign for governor in California in 1934, and, of course, Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor of California himself 70 years later.

Now, if you go to The New York Times Web site (www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/2008_EG_FINANCES_SEARCH.html), you can look up contributors to the 2008 presidential candidates by name and zip code. Not only can you find out who your neighbors have given money to (if it's over $200), you can find out how politically active entertainers have spread their wealth around. For instance, a certain Barry Manilow of Woodland Hills, Calif., has given $2,300 apiece to the campaigns of Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joseph Biden, former Sen. John Edwards and, wait for it, maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul.

If you search around in Manilow's zip code, 91367, you'll find a pretty glittery list of fellow contributors: Barbra Streisand, a longtime Democratic activist, has given $2,300 each to the campaigns of Obama and Edwards, but only $1,000 to the longshot candidacy of Sen. Chris Dodd. And, surprisingly, nothing for Clinton. Has-been comedian Pauly Shore is taking up some of the slack, though, by giving $1,000 to her campaign. High-rolling music mogul Irving Azoff has handed over $2,100 for Edwards and a self-employed person named Cynthia Crawford - that would be Cindy Crawford, I presume - has written a $2,300 check to Obama.

Searching randomly through various high-density celebrity zip codes, there's nothing that would disabuse anyone of the notion that the entertainment industry leans a bit to the left, but there are exceptions. Alan Osmond of the Osmond Brothers has given a pile of cash to the campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, for example, and Fred Gill, the dwarf who tours with country duo Big and Rich, has given $1,000 to the campaign of former Sen. Fred Thompson. Mike Curb, the music industry executive and former lieutenant governor of California, also has given to Thompson's campaign.

Of course, when big-dollar donations like these become matters of public record, it puts performers in the position of potentially alienating a portion of their audience. Someone might not want to buy their album or see their movie because of a politician they support. But that really shouldn't be the case. Sinatra was still a great singer, no matter whom he pulled the lever for in the voting booth, and Manilow could support sunny days, chocolate cake and universal peace and he'd still be mediocre.

Home

0 comments

All comments will be reviewed by administrators and posted to their respective articles within 24 hours. Comments deemed inappropriate will not be posted.

Subject:
Body:
Poster:

Enter text seen above: