Daily Archives: June 10, 2012

New Spider-Man poised to net Tony for Broadway role

June 10, 2012
By

Latest web-slinger Andrew Garfield is set for super-stardom after winning critical success in Death of a Salesman

Given that actor Andrew Garfield is three weeks away from starring as Spider-Man in a massive Hollywood blockbuster, one might expect all the media excitement to focus on his ability as a web-slinging superhero.

But instead Garfield’s star is rising, thanks to a critically acclaimed performance in a recent Broadway revival of classic American play Death of a Salesman, where he portrays Biff, the son of the doomed central character, Willy Loman.

The role could easily land Garfield a highly prized Tony award on Sunday night as the play, directed by veteran Mike Nichols, is up for a staggering seven awards at Broadway’s version of the Oscars.

Nominations for the latest production of Death of a Salesman include best revival and best actor for Philip Seymour Hoffman, who plays Loman, as well as Garfield who is up for best actor in a featured role.

Though Biff is not the key character, Garfield, who also featured in a supporting role in 2010′s Facebook movie The Social Network, has really shone onstage. The New York Times chief theatre critic Ben Brantley wrote that Garfield had brought “searing heat” to the role.

The Los Angeles Times critic Charles McNulty said: “Garfield plunges to the sea-floor bottom of this fractured father-son relationship and reveals unspeakable heartbreak throughout his perilous descent. Attention must be paid to such a performance.”

The glowing notices seem set to assure Garfield, who grew up in Surrey and has an English mother and an American father, as one of the hottest acting properties in both theatre and Hollywood.

“He is already big and yet the really big thing to happen to him, with the Spider-Man movie, has not even happened yet,” said Dan Bacalzo, managing editor of TheatreMania, a New York theatre website.

Bacalzo said that Garfield inhabited the role of Biff so well that it was easy to overlook his slight frame, even when playing a muscular former football player. “He just did an extraordinary job as an actor,” Bacalzo said.

It helps to be part of such an acclaimed production. While many revivals might try to bring new dramatic tricks or a modernist twist to a play that has become so central to the American canon, Nichols stayed true to Arthur Miller’s original vision.

The powerful tale of Loman’s vision of the American Dream running up against a grim reality of disappointment has been a cultural milestone ever since it debuted on Broadway in 1949. Its first production won a Pulitzer as a reflection of its biting social commentary and its first run lasted an incredible 742 performances, playing to packed houses for more than a year. Though its subject matter is dark it immediately took up a place as a masterpiece of American drama.

Nichols, who knew Miller well, has won plaudits for reflecting the true spirit of the work. “The dream of success remains the American Dream, but the idea that success is more likely to end in disappointment is a reality of our times. The notion that people are disposable is terribly difficult to swallow, but it’s true,” wrote Daily Beast critic Rebecca Miller in one analysis of Nichols’s production.

Tickets for the sold-out run were often fetching as much as $750 each online. Bacalzo said there was little doubt that the play had struck a powerful contemporary chord.

“It is an everyman’s tragedy. With Loman we watch him fall and he does not even have that far to fall to begin with. But that fall is still as moving as that of a Prince Hamlet or a King Lear,” he said.

Death of a Salesman has a great record of cementing the careers of aspiring actors. Few productions of any play have had the impact of the 1984 Broadway version, which starred Dustin Hoffman as Willy Loman and John Malkovich as Biff. That production also won a heap of Tonys, including awards for both Hoffman and Malkovich. It was then made into a film version a year later, with the same cast, and won Emmys for both of the main actors.

It seems doubtful, however, that Garfield will also make this transition from stage to film role. With the eagerly anticipated The Amazing Spider-Man set to hit US screens on 3 July, his Hollywood superstardom already seems guaranteed. Ironically, a play all about the denial of success has catapulted the young actor powerfully into the limelight.

Paul Harris

guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Quentin Tarantino and Johnny Depp saddle up to give new life to the western

June 10, 2012
By

Two of Hollywood’s leading radicals are daring to reinvent one of the oldest genres in the movie industry’s style book

The western movie is perhaps the most beloved all-American art form and one of the oldest genres in cinema. Now it is to get a post-modernist makeover in the shape of films from some of Hollywood’s most daringly experimental celebrities, seeking to turn long-standing conventions and themes on their heads.

In a genre where new films are relatively rare, several major westerns are on the horizon, but they appear to be far from the traditional fare of melancholy visions of the dying frontier or heroic tales of rough-edged cowboys, lantern-jawed sheriffs and outlaws on the run.

First up is iconoclastic director Quentin Tarantino, who last week released the first trailer for his latest film, Django Unchained. The movie, which features Jamie Foxx is full of familiar western signatures – a revenge-driven plot, bounty hunters and shootouts galore – but is clearly shot in the dialogue-driven, heavily pastiched and ironic style that is classic Tarantino.

Then next year comes The Lone Ranger, directed by Gore Verbinski, and starring Johnny Depp as the Native American sidekick Tonto. Daringly the movie will not focus on the masked hero. Instead Depp’s Tonto is expected to take centre-stage in a sardonic look at one of the central figures in western movie-making. A poster image released for the film shows Depp – wearing huge amounts of tribal makeup and a dead crow on his head – giving the Lone Ranger a sceptical look teachers usually reserve for their most idiotic pupils.

The two films appear to be the latest attempt to breathe fresh life into a genre whose origins lie in the very beginnings of movies with 1903′s The Great Train Robbery. But recently most westerns, such as last year’s hit remake True Grit or 2007′s 3.10 to Yuma, have been realistic, intellectual explorations of the West.

Sarah Kozloff, a film professor at Vassar College, expressed some concern over what Tarantino – best known for his hyper-violent hit Reservoir Dogs – would do to the western genre. “I cannot believe he will respect the tropes of the traditional western, which is often a critique of savagery and a melancholy about the passing of the frontier. Tarantino believes violence is funny.”

The western’s traditional format does not seem suitable for radical experimentation. In a genre more than a century old, not much has changed. The good guys still battle bad guys and a familiar cast of characters play out the usual plot lines against a key ingredient: a dramatic landscape. That solidity and deeply rooted sense of geography and history has made the western movie perhaps the ultimate American art form, with a special place in the popular cultural storehouse. “Scholars say it is the proto-typical American myth,” said Kozloff.

But it has also been, many experts say, an art form in decline. For decades westerns dominated US movie screens and television alike, from the constant churning out of B movies in the 1920s and 1930s to TV series such as Stagecoach. But in recent decades output has slowed to a few notable films every few years, despite regular attempts at revival and the continued production of occasional classics such as Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven and the critically acclaimed HBO series Deadwood. “It has been out of favour for years,” said Professor Scott Simmon, a film expert at the University of California, who believes the often macho militarism in westerns – best represented by John Wayne – did not sit well in post-Vietnam war America.

Nevertheless the twin Tarantino and Depp projects – and the fact that Joel and Ethan Coen directed last year’s True Grit – demonstrate that the western still has the ability to attract big names to high-profile projects. Supporters say its conventions and characters can display a high degree of flexibility when it comes to issues to explore. High art, they add, is no stranger to strapping on a six-shooter and getting on a horse. Often cited examples are Eastwood’s Unforgiven, which many saw as a regretful meditation on the ageing director’s own violent movie career, or Brad Pitt’s 2007 feature The Assassination of Jesse James, whose style and subject matter clearly took the western genre into the realm of art-house cinema. There is actually a long tradition of such attempts. The Lone Ranger is not even Depp’s first experiment. He was the star of Dead Man in 1995, a black-and-white western by auteur director Jim Jarmusch. “You are putting people on a wide-open landscape and they can tell whatever stories they want to. In many ways a western can be a blank slate,” said Simmon.

In fact, in a genre as old as the western even eccentrics such as Tarantino and Depp might have trouble doing something completely new. Even the controversy of using Depp – a white actor – to play a Native American character is not a novel one. Since the early days of westerns the casting of non-Native Americans to play “Red Indians” has sparked emotive debate. However, Depp has at least found a novel way to address the issue. Last month the actor was made an honorary member of the Comanche tribe and tribal member LaDonna Harris adopted the Hollywood A-lister as her son. Not even Tarantino would probably come up with a western twist as bizarre as that.

Paul Harris

guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Isaac Newton set to become the next Hollywood action hero

June 10, 2012
By

Screenplay for film about 17th-century scientist likely to be based around his tenure as warden and master of Royal Mint

He is known as the visionary English physicist, mathematician and astronomer – not to mention wannabe alchemist, theologian and natural philosopher – who laid the foundations for classical mechanics and developed the theory of gravity. But in the eyes of one LA-based production team, Sir Isaac Newton is the perfect historical figure to be Hollywood’s next action hero.

BiteSize Entertainment, which recently raised eyebrows with plans for a project based on the travails of one Rebekah Brooks, aims to base a new film franchise around the 17th-century icon considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived.

Rob Cohen, of The Fast and the Furious and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor fame, is working on a screenplay for the untitled project with an eye to directing, and will also oversee an associated graphic novel. Both will focus on Newton’s role as warden (and later master) of the Royal Mint, where he worked from 1696 until his death in 1727. Such jobs were intended to be mostly ceremonial, but the mathematician is said to have taken his duties to protect King William III’s currency rather seriously. He often pursued counterfeiters, and has been called one of the first detectives by historical biographers.

Ben Child

guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

J Michael Riva, veteran production designer, dies aged 63

June 10, 2012
By

Oscar-nominated production designer, known for his work on The Color Purple and The Goonies, has died

Oscar-nominated production designer J Michael Riva has died, Variety reports. The New York-born veteran had been working on the new Quentin Tarantino film Django Unchained. He was 63.

Riva’s Oscar nod came in 1985 for his work on Steven Spielberg’s The Color Purple. He also won an Emmy in 2007 for his work on the 79th Academy Awards ceremony, his second time in charge of production design duties following a stint in 2002.

Part of a showbiz family – he was the grandson of Marlene Dietrich – Riva’s long list of credits included work on forthcoming comic book reboot The Amazing Spider-Man as well as The Goonies, Lethal Weapon, and the first two Iron Man films. His father worked on Broadway as a set designer and his mother appeared in Dietrich’s 1934 historical drama The Scarlet Empress, playing Catherine the Great as a child.

Representatives for Riva said he died in hospital. Django Unchained has been shooting in New Orleans for a Christmas Day release in the US. It arrives in the UK on 18 January.

Ben Child

guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Guinness Book of World Records could be next big brand name to hit cinemas

June 10, 2012
By

US Office writer Danny Chun working on script based around heroic achievements of annual reference book’s record holders

With films based on the board games Battleship and Cluedo having already hit cinemas, and plans for Monopoly: the Movie still gently percolating in Hollywood, it should come as no surprise that another colossal brand name could soon be pushing its way into multiplexes. Studio Warner Bros is proposing a big-screen take on the Guinness Book of World Records, according to Deadline.

Danny Chun, of the US version of The Office, is currently wrestling with a script. Could it form the basis of an action adventure movie starring the world’s smallest woman, Usain Bolt and that woman with the horrible fingernails? No casting details are yet available, but the project may struggle to make it out of development hell. In 2007, Paramount shelved a $175m movie based on Ripley’s Believe It Or Not, directed by Tim Burton and starring Jim Carrey, just weeks before it was due to shoot. The film has not yet seen the light of day.

On the other hand, self-help books He’s Just Not That Into You and What to Expect When You’re Expecting have both formed the basis of successful movies, the latter having racked up a semi-decent $40m worldwide since debuting last month. Battleship, from director Peter Berg and starring Liam Neeson, Rihanna and Taylor Kitsch, was seen as something of a disappointment earlier this year despite taking nearly $300m across the globe.

Guinness World Records, known until 2000 as the Guinness Book of Records, was conceived in 1951 when Sir Hugh Beaver, the managing director of Guinness breweries, found himself trying to settle an argument over whether Europe’s fastest bird was the golden plover or the grouse during a hunting outing in County Wexford, Ireland. The experience made him realise that a book chronicling world records might prove popular, and the first edition was published in 1954, with the first 1,000 copies given away free. The following year, the book went on to top the British bestsellers’ list, and a 1956 US launch resulted in the sale of 70,000 copies. The film version will apparently use the heroic achievements of record holders as the basis for a narrative that should have global appeal.

Ben Child

guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Twickenham film studios saved from closure after campaigners intervene

June 10, 2012
By

Mystery buyer steps in after Spielberg and others back petition – while in Miami, Donald Trump plans to open huge new studio

Twickenham film studios, used for productions as diverse as Roman Polanski‘s Repulsion, Ridley Scott‘s Blade Runner, and the Beatles films, is to be saved from closure following a campaign backed by figures such as Steven Spielberg and Colin Firth.

Administrator Gerald Krasner said in February that the studios were to be closed, just one year ahead of the facility’s centenary anniversary, due to ongoing financial travails. However, opposition from film industry figures and local residents to a plan to demolish the site in favour of housing appears to have prompted a change of heart. Krasner, of joint administrators Begbies Traynor, told Sky News on Thursday that a mystery buyer has stepped in to purchase the studio and maintain its film-making facilities, with all current staff retained.

“It is envisaged that completion will take place later this year,” read a statement from the firm. “At this stage, the purchaser wishes to remain anonymous and further details will be released after completion.”

Campaigner Maria Walker, whose petition also attracted signatures from Stephen Daldry, David Cronenberg and Julie Walters, said she was “cautiously optimistic” about the studio’s future “because we don’t know who the buyer is”. She told Sky News: “If it is genuine then it is great news but we do have our concerns.”

Walker’s petition ultimately attracted more than 5,000 signatures, helping to fend off interest from homebuilder Taylor Wimpey and another anonymous developer, which pulled out despite laying down a £100,000 non-returnable deposit.

Twickenham was the largest studio in the country during the 1930s and is still considered one of the UK’s pre-eminent film-making facilities, alongside Pinewood and Shepperton studios. Recent films shot there include the period drama My Week With Marilyn, which borrowed the site’s viewing theatre and wardrobe department for Simon Curtis’ retelling of the short, fraught production of Marilyn Monroe and Laurence Olivier‘s ill-fated 1957 film The Prince and the Showgirl. Spielberg’s War Horse was partly shot on site last year, while Phyllida Lloyd’s Margaret Thatcher biopic The Iron Lady made use of the post-production facilities.

In other film production news, the US businessman Donald Trump has announced ambitious plans for a new studio facility in Florida. Trump Studio City would be built on public-owned land 30 miles south of Miami, and could be twice the size of Universal Studios in LA, making it one of the largest facilities on earth. The plans include connected plazas, media centres, palm-lined boulevards, and production stages of up to 250,000 square feet, as well as an airport, hotel and film school.

Miami-Dade county mayoral candidate Joe Martinez voiced his support for the proposed studio at a meeting of the county commission on Wednesday. “What does Hollywood have that we don’t have?” he said. “What does LA have that we don’t have? They are not as close to central and south America as we are. They are not as close to the financial capital of the world as we are. They are not as close to Europe as we are … Why can’t we have an industry that even the environmentalists like – the movie industry?”

Ben Child

guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

2012 Teacher Incentive Fund Invites Districts to Pursue a New Vision for Human Capital Through Stronger Evaluations and Greater Professional Opportunities

June 10, 2012
By

The U.S. Department of Education announced today the final application period for the $285 million Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) 2012 competition.

How Twitter is putting an end to our private lives

June 10, 2012
By

The ridicule of an actor, a marriage split and a couple’s sex life have been shared on social media. Should they have been?

One of the most unnerving sentences I read last week was a brief question posed by someone I didn’t know, about someone I didn’t know: although by the time I read it, I was au fait with a conversation that they might – or might not – have had. But I certainly wasn’t well enough acquainted with Melissa Stetten to be able to judge the tone of this tweet: “Did I just ruin Brian Presley’s life via Twitter?”

Stetten is a 22-year-old model who, on 6 June, took a flight from Los Angeles to New York and found herself sitting next to an actor called Brian Presley. This much, we think, is undisputed; what followed is not. In a series of tweets, Stetten appears to convey their conversation, which fulfils two cliches: that of person bored half to death by self-regarding neighbour who fails to pick up on their “I’m going to read my book now” cues; and that of attractive woman hit on by man emboldened by a hiatus in matrimonial or familial obligations.

The tweets are, in fact, quite amusing, because Stetten displays a certain gift for the truncated comic narrative. “Brian is now talking about how he is an artist and believes everything happens for a reason, like how we’re brought together on this flight,” she begins. “Brian just took his Heineken in a plastic cup into the bathroom. Will report back shortly” is a further bulletin. “Brian said he was engaged to another actress but it didn’t work out because they didn’t ‘mesh well’ together” gives us an insight into his personal life. Along the way, a wellwisher tweets a link to an article from Christianity Today, in which Presley had revealed how sobriety and weekly AA meetings turned his life around. You can virtually hear Stetten’s snort of derision: “Holy shit. He’s had 3 Heinekens and is wasted. Sober? Hardly.”

But it is the tweet that immediately follows that is the most chilling; and mainly because we don’t know the answer to it. Has Stetten ruined Presley’s life via Twitter? Might her insinuations – that he has fallen off the wagon, that he is primed for infidelity, that he is a tremendous fool – lead to an avalanche of disaster: the collapse of his career, the end of his marriage, a return to addiction? Who knows? Not us.

And neither do we know – although we can perhaps hazard a guess — what Stetten (Twitter bio: “Just trying to keep up with the Kardashians”) felt as she was typing that question. Was she overcome by the sudden apprehension that she might have unleashed a series of events over which she no longer had any control? Did she feel remorse?

Or is it merely a rhetorical swagger, a quick pirouette of triumph?

Quite possibly, none of the above; quite possibly it was something dashed off, to get a quick laugh or fill an idle moment, or keep the momentum going. That’s the problem with abandoning yourself to someone’s online persona: you don’t actually know who they are.

It should be noted that Presley denies the conversation took place, or at least as described on Twitter. “I guess in today’s age you have to be careful who you say hello too [sic],” he confided ruefully (on Facebook).

Those who found this exchange simply too inconsequential, or even too benign, have had somewhere else to look for their vicious jollies in recent days, as super-rich spouses Ben Goldsmith and Kate Rothschild took lumps out of one another via, once again, the medium of Twitter.

It doesn’t take the most obsessive privacy freak to suggest that the painful complexities of ending a nine-year marriage are probably best negotiated behind closed doors; and, after a few days, Ben and Kate agreed. Their tweets were taken down and their joint statement acknowledged that “things have been said in public which should have been kept private”, going on to reassure us that “we accept our full share of responsibility for this”, which is good of them considering that they are, of course, entirely responsible. You mightn’t think that, though, from Kate’s final thoughts on the matter. “All of you should go home,” she tweeted, “and question whether you are really in a position to judge and condemn and then get on with fixing your own lives.” Phew! Touché!

On the surface, the difference between the two episodes is obvious: one was presumably conducted by stealth, the other had two fully engaged participants. But is it really that clear? How do you know, for example, whether your own beliefs about privacy might go out of the window in the heat of an acrimonious split-up, or sexual boastfulness, or spurned humiliation? Say that you could swear on your life that you wouldn’t spill the beans in public, no matter what.

Could you guarantee the same discretion on your partner’s behalf?

The thought of prenuptial – or even pre-cuddle – non-Twitter-disclosure agreements might be vaguely distasteful but it is also somewhat beside the point. Social media do not simply provide a forum for blabbing, they redraw our ideas of what is and isn’t our personal life. All of this makes one feel rather nostalgic for, and kindly disposed towards, Melanie Sykes, who drew the wrath of the puritans when she exchanged fruity tweets with her new boyfriend, the wonderfully named Jack Cockings. Sykes might have got away with this had she not been (a) a fair bit older than her new beau, and (b) a woman displaying an extremely healthy sexual appetite. Admittedly her messages of romance were a little gauche, and certainly exhibitionist.

Of course, as many enraged moralists could barely wait to point out, they could have been seen by children. On the other hand, Mel and Jack seemed to be having a jolly nice time together and doing little to harm others. Indeed, their exchanges – rather less explicit these days – continue to charm.

“I’m a dolphin,” he said to her, quite recently. “I’m a dolphin too,” she replied. Allowing for the fact that this could of course be private code for some recherché sexual activity, what could be nicer?

Alex Clark

guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Kanye West: a wildly happy birthday to one of rap’s most ridiculous geniuses

June 10, 2012
By

Despite all the Twitter ranting and award storming, Kanye West deserves a b-day celebration as fancy as the shoes he’s selling

It’s the 35th birthday of Kim Kardashian’s boyfriend, and though we don’t have details on what will surely be one of the parties of the year, we do know that the rapper has probably lived more outrageously in the past week than most of us will in our entire lives.

On Wednesday there was the latest video from Kanye’s GOOD album, and on Saturday a shoe he designed goes on sale – and people who don’t yet own the footwear are selling their putative purchases on eBay where bids have topped $10,000.

So let’s take a moment to review this Atlanta-born rapper’s progress to celebri-God status. He began his career in rap in 1996, eventually producing an album critics consider to be one of the best of the 2000s – The Blueprint by Jay-Z.

But a year before releasing his debut album, West was in a Los Angeles car crash and had to have his jaw wired shut for six weeks. During his recovery, he came up with ideas and songs for his critically-acclaimed debut – 2004′s The College Dropout – and hasn’t shut up since. Here we present a few examples of why that is a very, very good thing.

Twitter rage

West has a particular relationship with the social network – and often it’s to do with clothing.

At 10:36pm ET on 4 January, West launched into the Twitter rant to eclipse all Twitter rants. In a stream of tweets that went in to the early morning, West outlined his plan for design company Donda while also dispelling rumors that he would be directing a Jetson’s movie.

West tweeted that the company would have 22 divisions and be made up of the most talented experts from a plethora of seemingly unrelated fields – including social media experts, bankers and nutritionists.

The episode has been mocked and ridiculed, but West’s heart seemed to be in the right place. Donda is named in honor of his mother who died 10 November 2007. And the idea of using his enormous wealth to fund innovation is surely honorable. Even if this rant seems like a product of middle-of-the-night substance abuse, his statements and hopes are resoundingly positive.

In the twitter stream, he mentions the Air Yeezy 2 sneaker, which goes on sale on Saturday. People have been camping in line since Wednesday for the shoe, which is officially priced at $245. Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem quite in line with the accessible-to-all mission he sold on Twitter, but there is still time to prove the honesty of his Donda venture.

‘I just threw some bassoon on this muthafucka’

While he may be playing the consumerism game with the $245 sneakers, not everything West makes is exploitative. Since 2010, West has offered the medium that made him famous for free with his GOOD Friday song releases.

Each track is free for download and features a slew of musicians, including Kid Cudi, Nicki Minaj and indie-darling Bon Iver.

So far, 15 tracks have been released, the most recent being Mercy:

The hypnotic black and white video features a few members from the rotating GOOD crew, including 2 Chainz, a rapper who in West’s words can now charge 100k per verse.

West and crew could easily be making millions selling these tracks, instead GOOD Fridays delivers high-quality beats to an adoring audience – a true celebration of his fans.

“I’m really happy for you. I’m going to let you finish …”

On Twitter, West’s lack of a filter results in a beautiful monologue of undecipherable ridiculousness, but at awards shows it becomes a cringe-inducing storm.

Kanye’s infamous history at awards shows began when he stormed the stage at the 2006 MTV Europe Music Awards after his video for Touch the Sky lost the out in the best video category to Justice and Simian for We Are Your Friends.

Then, when Britney Spears was favored for the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards opening performance, he pulled the race card saying: “Maybe my skin’s not right”. Of course, those have all been bypassed by the now infamous Taylor Swift incident at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, when West stole the 19-year-old’s mic, saying Beyonce deserved the award more.

It was an unquestionably rude move, but between being a millionaire musician and dating Jake Gyllenhaal, I think Swift was able to make a decent recovery.

‘Everybody in hip-hop discriminates against gay people’

Kanye West might not be able to understand the funniest joke in the world, but he should be credited for supporting gay rights early in his career.

“Everybody in hip-hop discriminates against gay people,” West told MTV in 2005. “And I want to just come on TV and just tell my rappers, just tell my friends, ‘Yo, stop it fam.’”

Even Jay-Z, West’s friend and frequent collaborator, didn’t take a public stance on same-sex marriage until this year.

‘George Bush doesn’t care about black people’

West took his unfiltered political feelings a bit too far at A Concert for Hurricane relief fundraiser for Hurricane Katrina’s victims that was broadcast across the US.

After a mildly incoherent off-script rant about the mistakes made by the Bush adminstration during Hurricane Katrina, West blatantly accuses then-president Bush of being a racist.

His timing was inopportune, but some credit is due for his willingness to depart from the script and voice his feelings.

At the very least, West has made an honorable habit of apologizing for his absent-minded actions – on Twitter and TV for each incident – a habit more public figures should emulate.

Amanda Holpuch

guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

We’re all poorer when we seek Kim Kardashian’s take on poverty | Marina Hyde

June 10, 2012
By

Charities may be waking up to the fact that, far from aiding their causes, celebrity advocacy is actually damaging them

It says something about how deeply we have tumbled down the rabbit hole of celebrity advocacy that the most reasonable statement I can remember on the matter has just been made by Pamela Anderson. “Sometimes I wonder if I am making it worse, or making it better,” the Baywatch legend mused at a rainforest charity reception at the House of Lords last week. “Am I legitimising these causes? Or the opposite? Who knows?”

It’s an excellent question, and a tribute to Pammy that she should possess the self-deprecating candour to ask it so publicly, when most stars appear to regard their immense value as axiomatic. The short answer to “who knows?” is “no one, really” – but we shall come to some intriguing new scientific research on the matter shortly. With the exception of celebrity campaigns apparently conceived as some kind of satirical dare – BBC3 sending Lindsay Lohan to India to discourse on human trafficking, for instance – it has become one of the orthodoxies of the age that entertainer advocacy is a good and effective thing.

And so to a new, large-scale survey carried out by the UK Public Opinion Monitor, an initiative of the Institute of Development Studies, which in this case examined public responses to celebrity advocacy. The survey’s designers stress the data is still being analysed, but one interesting finding has emerged with some clarity: most people claim not to be swayed by celebrity-fronted campaigns, but they do think that other people are swayed by them. Which suggests that celebrity campaigns are popularly believed to be popular – but falsely so.

If this is true, it would require such a rethink of the way causes advance themselves that all sorts of heads might explode. The UN has a whole celebrity outreach department, while the celebrity liaison officers of UK charities are so legion they hold regular forums. Celebrity advocacy has even developed its own awards industry, hosting glitzy galas where showbiz humanitarians are given gongs. Angelina Jolie has won at least five, most of which were confected for her, and even Paris Hilton has a couple. (Those who devote 365 days of the year to working tirelessly and anonymously on these causes don’t seem to be eligible.)

Shamefully, of course, the reason charities feel they have to deploy entertainers in this way is because the media – across the board, though to varying degrees – have become progressively less willing to highlight an issue, or capable of it, without a celebrity’s involvement. It’s a vicious cycle, rarely broken by anything that might be considered “actual research”, which makes the IDS’s survey such an interesting nugget.

It certainly seems superior to recent research in which some US undergraduates were presented with a selection of celebrities and social causes, as a detailed questionnaire sought to determine which star would be the most effective advocate for a cause, in terms of their fit with the mission and their ability to make people part with money. The results indicated that the best celebrity to “help a child in extreme poverty” was Kim Kardashian. Can Kim Kardashian really change the world? You know, for the better? Or does giving American college students course credits for participating in studies like these (as happened in this case) go on to skew all kinds of debates more important than “do you reckon Kim’s 72-day marriage was a stunt?”.

Alas, the idea that celebrity advocacy may not be the answer to some of the world’s most intractable problems appears yet to have taken meaningful hold of the charitable imagination. But there are a few more questioning voices. Last year, research produced in conjunction with Oxfam concluded that charities should be deeply suspicious of the long-term values a strategy of celebrity association would promote. “Celebrities should be used with extreme care in campaigns,” the report’s authors declared, “given the strong links between celebrity culture, consumer culture and the values of self-interest.” They warned that celebrity advocacy promoted brief and shallow engagement, quick transactions, and no “supporter journey”, which is at best no long-term strategy, and at worst corrosive.

But it’s not just that a near-universal celebrity-driven approach fundamentally changes the nature of people’s engagement with causes, or that it over-empowers entertainers. It’s that genuinely expert voices are crowded out of the debate, which effectively denies progressive forces the chance to create their own “celebrities” organically. There’s a tireless and impassioned Indian woman named Sunitha Krishnan campaigning on trafficking in India – but convention demands you never hear of her, and the likes of Lindsay Lohan get the gig.

Even more troubling than the heroes who remain unsung are the arguments left unheard. Despite their self-images, most stars – particularly the biggest US ones – tend to be extremely conservative in their choice of causes, acutely aware that anti-establishment messages put off paying fans who may sit on a different part of the political spectrum. The effect is to anchor the debate firmly on the middle ground, leaving completely in the dark the sorts of more radical arguments that have always been a crucial element of change. And therein, perhaps, lies the most unthinkable question. Do celebrities actually legitimise the status quo?

Twitter: @MarinaHyde

Marina Hyde

guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Powered by WP Robot