Opinion Definitely not the 99 per cent
Do overpaid Hollywood stars muddle Occupy Wall Street message even more?
Frank Bruni
What enormous comfort it must give the Occupy Wall Street protesters to know that celebrities feel their pain. Roseanne Barr,for example. The comedian bleeds for them. Or,rather,would have others bleed; inspired by the protests,she recommended the guillotine for the greediest bankers. Back in the 1990s,for the final seasons of her sitcom Roseanne,she made at least $20 million a year. She was not the 99 per cent.
The rap mogul Russell Simmons and the rapper Kanye West meandered over to Occupy Wall Streets cradle,Zuccotti Park. By all accounts West was wearing more bling,though Simmons has bigger bucks: his net worth has been estimated as being between $100 million and $340 million. Wests is below that,and he made only $16 million or so last year. They are not even the 99.5 per cent.
While that doesnt disqualify them or other entertainers from sympathising with Occupy Wall Street,it gives their public gestures of solidarity a discordant,sometimes specious ring. It also confuses the identity of a protest movement that has challenges aplenty in the coherence department.
The movements we are the 99 per cent motto expresses ire over not only the unaccountability of huge financial institutions but also income inequality in America and the concentration of so much wealth and privilege in so few hands. Every time a wealthy messenger gloms on,that aspect of the message gets muddled and possibly compromised.
And the glomming has begun. With a slowly growing number of actors and musicians paying well-chronicled visits to Zuccotti Park,the movement is in danger of becoming a sticky fly strip for entertainers who like to flaunt their self-styled populism. Susan Sarandon has been. Michael Moore has been. While both may have been propelled there by genuine anger,they have so much of it,are so famous for it and spread it so widely that their appearances can do the opposite of elevating a demonstration,making it seem merely fashionable and giving naysayers an easier way to roll their eyes.
Entertainers are members of the well-connected economic elite against which Occupy Wall Street ostensibly rages,whether or not they want to see themselves that way. True,theyre not bundling mortgages,and they often have their extravagantly beating hearts in the right place. Many donate generously to charity. Many do remarkable good. But they nonetheless make oodles of money for themselves and for major corporations with lavishly compensated executives. In some cases entertainers even make money for the banking industry itself. This issue came up last week when Alec Baldwin dropped by Zuccotti Park. Critics noted that he appears in television commercials for Capital One,a banking behemoth. While he responded that he gives his fee away,hes still promoting the company.
Like Wall Street bankers,entertainment industry executives havent exactly suffered in this economy. Celebrities help line those executives pockets,even if thats not their goal,and then take the extra step of supporting other affluent corporations as pitchmen and pitchwomen. There are many mixed signals in the celebrity assist to Occupy Wall Street,along with a reminder that we too seldom hold stars to account for their own greed.
There are many causes that want for notice and can benefit mightily from celebrity interventions. Occupy Wall Street isnt one of them,at least not at this point. Entertainers who raise its banner may get some self-promotion and ego inflation from the effort,but they do the protest questionable good. And protesters would be wise to keep all that glitters including the gold chain on Kanye Wests neck at arms length.
Share
