Friday, June 29, 2007
A+E, In this Issue...

Second opinion

Celebrity activists offer the cure for what ails us

Michael Moore in “Sicko”—does his aggressive approach blunt his effectiveness as a celebrity activist? CREDIT: Courtesy of Lionsgate/The Weinstein Company

“SiCKO” Directed by Michael Moore Rated PG-13 Wide release

BY KEVIN FOREST MOREAU

The summer movie season is in full swing, and while the eagerly awaited return of John McClane in “Live Free or Die Hard” will doubtless top the box office, it won’t be the most talked-about film released this weekend. That distinction goes to “Sicko,” Michael Moore’s funny, thought-provoking and outright provocative take on the U.S. health-care industry. Even before the movie’s wide release on June 29, it was already stirring up controversy.

That’s not particularly surprising, considering that Moore cemented his reputation as a firebrand with 2004’s pointed anti-Bush missile “Fahrenheit 9/11.” But in today’s increasingly divided culture, media figures like Moore—and especially celebrities like the Dixie Chicks and Sean Penn—are using their high-profile positions as pulpits to speak their minds about political issues more and more.

“Celebrities have become more active than they’ve ever been before,” says Darrell West, a political science professor at Brown University and co-author of the book “Celebrity Politics.” And they’re drawing increasing fire for it. “They have to understand we live in a very polarized world, and if they take a strong stance, they’re going to aggravate people on the other side. They can express freedom of speech as much as they want—but so can their opponents.”

NOTHING NEW
To be sure, the intersection of politics and celebrity isn’t new, and it isn’t limited to celebrity activism. There’s a rich history of celebrities actually crossing over into politics, from Ronald Reagan’s presidency to Clint Eastwood’s stint as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif., Sonny Bono’s tenure in Congress, Fred Thompson’s Senate career, Jesse Ventura’s governorship of Minnesota and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s current role as California’s governor.

The equation has worked just as well in reverse: John F. Kennedy, with his “Camelot” mystique and rumors about his relationship with Marilyn Monroe, was the first celebrity president, who won office in part because he was far more telegenic than his opponent, Richard Nixon. Bill Clinton famously played the sax on Arsenio Hall’s late-night program during his first presidential campaign, and courted U2’s endorsement just as aggressively as he did those of media outlets.

And then there’s Al Gore, who parlayed his devastating loss to George W. Bush in 2000 into his present status as a kind of environmental rock star, proselytizing for global warming and even winning an Academy Award for “An Inconvenient Truth.” Gore’s series of “Live Earth” concerts next weekend, designed to raise awareness for the issue of climate change, testifies to his growing status as a celebrity whose stature transcends “mere” electoral politics.

“It’s a celebrity culture,” West says simply. And in that culture, “people from outside the world of politics have a platform to express their political views. We have individuals who want to fight world hunger, increase funding for breast cancer research or do more on health care. And celebrities have a lot of credibility, because Americans are so cynical about politicians that they trust people from outside the political realm.”

OBSCURING THE MESSAGE
Well, yes … up to a point. But more and more, whatever awareness celebrities are able to raise about a particular issue seems to get lost in the din of outrage and condemnation from critics who derisively dismiss their credibility and even their right to speak out. In our increasingly connected world, it’s easy to drown in the flurry of talk-radio tirades, angry blog posts and slanted media items that pop up whenever a celebrity does offer his or her opinion.

Certainly, it doesn’t help matters when high-profile celebrities risk making themselves look foolish. Rosie O’Donnell’s online musings that the destruction of the Twin Towers on Sept. 11 may have been more than terrorism only undermined her tenuous credibility as a paid provocateur on “The View.” Whatever their true intentions, Danny Glover’s public embrace of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Sean Penn’s stumping for the friendly folks of Iran strike many Americans as crossing some thin, intangible—but very real—line.

“It used to be that celebrities chose safe issues,” West says. “But lately they’ve taken much stronger positions and sometimes have become very polarizing figures themselves. Sean Penn went to Baghdad before the Iraq war, and that evoked a lot of rage. Michael Moore—liberals love him, conservatives hate him.”

While Moore’s outspoken views do find favor with the political left, he also inadvertently makes a strong case that things aren’t so cut and dried as a simple breakdown of left vs. right. Moore’s onscreen persona—low-key yet sarcastic, humorous yet confrontational and downright smarmy—can be just as divisive for many viewers as the shout-them-down provocations of right-wing talk radio.

“The messenger matters a lot,” West says. “If the celebrity has baggage, it’s going to interfere with the ability of people to hear the message.”

IT DOESN’T MATTER IF YOU’RE LEFT OR RIGHT
To be sure, in “Sicko” Moore tones down the aggressive bullying that marked “Roger & Me,” “Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Instead of barging into the boardrooms of health-care conglomerates, he focuses, in the movie’s first half, on the stories of folks who’ve been victimized by our current system—not because they don’t have insurance, but because their insurance companies declined to pay for critical treatments or even, in one case, an ambulance ride (because it wasn’t “preapproved”).

But he also tosses political barbs into a debate that affects people on both sides of the rhetorical aisle. Some of them are relatively benign (the expected jabs at George W. Bush) and some enlightening (as when Nixon is damningly captured scheming for a system geared “toward less medical care”). Fair enough—he also tars Hillary Clinton for her receipt of campaign contributions from the health-care industry.

And then there’s the final third of the film, in which Moore takes a retinue of Sept. 11 rescue workers with various medical ailments for free treatment—in Cuba, a country from which hundreds attempt to flee every year (despite the free health care). He spends a great deal of time in Canada, France and Great Britain, interviewing patients, citizens and health-care workers in an effort to disprove criticisms of their government-subsidized health-care systems and prove that they’re worth emulating. But he can’t resist poking a giant stick at his conservative nemeses by taking his rescue workers to the one country he profiles that doesn’t enjoy a good relationship with the U.S.

CRITICAL OPPORTUNITY
Subtlety having never been Moore’s strong suit as a filmmaker, his point is difficult to ignore: He’s pursuing a larger message about a U.S. citizenry kept in fear by its leaders, a state of fear from which our health-care system profits a great deal. Fine, we get it. But it’s hard to shake the notion that in doing so, he misses a critical opportunity to appeal to folks outside of his normal base.

After all, with the possible exception of HMO executives, not too many folks would argue that our current health-care system isn’t broken. Some issues are bigger than left vs. right, or which celebrity takes up the cause. Civil rights, it can be argued, eventually became one of them. Shouldn’t health care be on that list as well?

Maybe so, but “Sicko” won’t be the instrument of that change. “I think it’ll be interesting to see how the Cuba angle plays out,” says West. “Most Americans agree there are serious problems with our health-care system, but wouldn’t agree” that Cuba is a model we should follow.

“Michael Moore demonstrates that you can make a lot of money from niche documentaries,” West continues, “that in an era of political polarization, you can play to the base and be very successful in a commercial sense. His base isn’t that big, but it’s big enough that if he makes a low-cost documentary he can make a lot of money off of it.”

But beyond that, how effective can a polarizing celebrity figure—be it Moore or O’Donnell or Penn—really be? Are they just preaching to the choir?

“Moore was not able to stop Bush from being elected in 2004,” West says. “Moore himself was so controversial that it interfered with the more general message he was trying to present.”

And therein lies the rub: By doggedly injecting politics into a debate that should arguably be above them, has he blown a chance to influence an extremely
important issue?

“Celebrities are great at raising awareness because they can attract media attention to a cause,” West says, adding that beyond raising money and introducing topics for discussion, their effectiveness is very limited. “It’s harder for them to turn that awareness into effective political action because the system moves very slowly.”

A GROWTH INDUSTRY

There are, of course, celebrities who are successful at raising consciousness (George Clooney, Angelina Jolie) or even affecting real change. “Bono has gotten world leaders to take steps to address world poverty,” says West, “and Michael J. Fox has gotten increases in federal funding for research for Parkinson’s Disease. But it’s hard to quantify effect because a lot of what they do is put things on the agenda, [and] that doesn’t always guarantee government action.

“The ideal case of celebrity activism is when the message and the messenger line up perfectly. When Oprah Winfrey speaks, she has credibility across the political spectrum.”
That harmonic convergence seems to happen less often these days, but that hasn’t stopped media personalities from stepping into the fray—and we shouldn’t expect that to change in the near future.

“Celebrity activism is a growth industry,” says West. “It’s not going to go away anytime soon. The country’s fascinated with celebrities, and even when we bemoan their positions, we still pay attention to what they have to say.”

At least until another celebrity comes along—as Moore himself can attest. Scheduled to discuss “Sicko” on CNN’s “Larry King Live” this past Wednesday, Moore found himself bumped in favor of someone far more important to our celebrity-obsessed culture: Paris Hilton. SP