Funniest post I’ve seen in ages.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
**
While I agree that any celebrity donating his or her time/money/pretty face to help in/attract attention to some cause or other is always a good thing, and that “Tom fucking Hanks” may in fact research his roles assiduously, one part of the OP that may not have been explicitly stated (at least not as explicit as Enderw24’s post) that i strongly agree with is this. Tom Hanks may or may not be “fully qualified” to talk about D-Day, astronauteering, lycanthropy, or any other subject, but the fact of the matter is that he is percieved to be qualified to speak at these events solely because he is an actor. And that burns me up. It’s ALL about celebrity in this country-- if you can act (or, in the case of Tom Hanks, if you can’t in fact act but have somehow managed to convince masses of people that you can), if you’re famous, then you ARE the expert. Because you’re better than me. It doesn’t matter if I truly do have that PhD in the subject in question, they’d rather have you speak at that event, because I am a lowly mortal, a commoner, while you are Tomfucking*Hanks.
btw, step off manhattan. Bosom Buddies fuckin rocked. I used to love that show when I was a little kid and… look at me now… oh… i see.
Actually, what I got from the OP was that Wrath perceived Mr. Hanks to be UNqualified to speak at these events solely because he is an actor.
Yes, it’s true that being famous doesn’t necessarily make someone knowledgeable on a subject… but that doesn’t exclude them, either.
True, and true. But, um, on the other hand…
Okay, I give up. I agree with you.
Thanks for the bashing… I deserved it for not being eloquent… Nothing gets by you guys.
This is what I meant. Thanks, White Lightning. See, when you rant in the pit, you tend to get all emotional.
Back to your regular Wrath-bashing.
Actually, he is percieved as someone the common folk might listen and the media folk may quote because he is a popular personality. As such, certain other folks may try to involve him in their causes to garner support.
A valid point. But I don’t think Tom Hanks, personally, perpetuates this misconception and is undeserving of the scorn.
It just seems to me that when you use a celebrity to hock something, it’s as if you’re saying “this cause is not worth it unless we get some well-known personality to speak out for us.” And that’s sad. It cheapens the whole affair.
Celebrities sell out for advertising all the time. I’m not saying Hanks is a sell-out, but it has the same perception. “Hey everyone! This cause must be worthwhile cuz we got Hanks!” Then the media dive-in, as if a D-Day memorial would have otherwise gotten zero coverage.
Hulk Hogan recently attended a sales promotion for one reason only: to generate traffic so the dealership could sell more cars at an auto dealership. And that he did. The flocks came, cars were sold. What does a wrestling personality have to do with selling cars? Nothing. He was there to get people to come.
So the perception is that the D-Day commemoration would have been less meaningful and attended without Hanks’ persona. Why? Because the media catered to it.. Thus, perception becomes reality. Why did the media give Hanks coverage? To boost viewership. Why? To get a higher media rating to increase advertising sales. It just cheapens the whole thing.
I’m also not meaning to say that Hanks, or any one, can’t be passionate and learned about other things, especially actors who must study to understand a role. But as I said before, I’d rather see and hear from the true heros and legends, those directly or indirectly involved, for such an event.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by White Lightning *
**
Did you miss seeing “Philadelphia”? One of the best performances I have ever seen.
Stepping up to bat for Wrath, here . . . I think I know what he means: what irritates me about Tom Hanks is that solemn pomposity when he discovers a cause. Remember after “Philadelphia,” him getting all choked up because he suddenly realized that THERE ARE GAY PEOPLE? Now he’s all teary-eyed about WWII vets, but always with an annoying holier-than-though tinge to it. It’s not WHAT he’s saying so much, it’s the impression of The Great and Powerful Hanks, taking on the Sorrow of the World, that irks me.
I agree with at least the spirit of Wrath’s OP, which, I believe, is that celebrity worship has nothing to do with expertise in any field. Tom Hanks may be an expert in WWII; he probably isn’t, but who cares, because he’s TOM HANKS!! I think celebrity worship is the ultimate in jobism; why, exactly, do we worship celebrities? We don’t even know them. Get a celebrity to go to bat for your cause or whatever; just make sure that they are as qualified to be there as any other speaker you could choose, not just because they have a face that is familiar to the masses.
Um, I’m afraid that may be exactly right- the coverage would have been scanty at best. After all, the media’s target age range has little or no connection to WWII, let alone a single operation. Yes, it’s sad that something worthwile needs a celebrity “hook,” but beggars can’t be choosers if they want their message heard.
What have you heard lately about the proposed WWI memorial? Have you ever heard of it? Did you become aware of it only after Bob Dole (I know, I know, but a “celebrity” nonetheless) began advertising it on TV?
I don’t percieve actors as experts on anything just because they’re actors. Hell, many of them aren’t even experts at that. But I really don’t mind someone famous (for whatever reason) calling attention to a worthy cause. I don’t see Tom Hanks as a smarmy asshole, but maybe that’s because I’ve enjoyed most of his work.
Now, I have an entirely different opinion of Babs…
Jesus, I meant WWII memorial…
:: must preview, even if connection is like pushing molasses ::
Wrath: Any time.
monster: Good call. Philadelphia was good, and Hanks was good in it. Big is a classic. It’s his current incarnation that I resent, and his egomania.
spooje: Right. He attracts attention due to his celebrity. And if the WWII memorial fund, or whoever was running the thing, wants to do that, then that’s their business. Wrath feels that that represents a cheapening of their cause, and it bothers Eve and featherlou in principle. I agree with them both, and i think Eve said it best. Tom Hanks, at the cutting edge of Western Morality, on a holy mission to define our next area of concern. He should get together with Oprah, they could rule the world.
To quote Peter Parker’s uncle, “With great power comes great responsibility.” I agree that celebrity in this culture is an enourmous, probably disproportionate amount of power, but I have to say that Hank’s way of using his celebrity beats most celebrities by miles.
Perhaps awarding celebrities pitching worthy causes undue attention strikes some as inappropriate; personally, I prefer seeing that to seeing another scandalous divorce, drug habit, or temper tantrum played up in the media.
He’s trying to use his power for good. As a human, he may not always hit the mark exactly, but he’s trying. That speaks well of anyone in my book.
I, too, agree with the spirit of the OP. Maybe Hanks isn’t the best poster boy for this issue, since he apparently does have a brain and does research the issues he cares about. I think the medicine commercials done by the soap opera stars who portray doctors are a better example. (Giving us the classic line “IANAD, but I play one on TV…”)
I’ll take it a step further though, by hijacking it into a slightly different direction. I am driven nuts by the tragedy of celebrity deaths. Yes, it’s sad when anyone you like or admire dies, but people tend to make it seem as if it is so much more tragic than when anyone else dies.
In particular, I remember being irked about the hoo-rah surrounding Michael Landon’s death from cancer a few years ago. I have nothing against the man, and I think he handled his illness gracefully. However, all the “poor, brave Michael, isn’t this tragic” stuff got to me. At least he had the comfort of knowing that his family would be well taken care of after his death, and knowing that he could take advantage of the best health care available to try to find a cure.
I think it’s far more tragic when poor Joe Schmoe sees all of his financial resources drained in his cancer treatments, knowing that he’s leaving his wife and kids without a home or life savings. How many people die feeling guilty for living as long as they do, knowing that those miserable last days in the hospital are bankrupting their family? How about the ones that would love to try an alternative treatment, but don’t have the opportunity, because their insurance policy won’t cover it?
This may sound like an anti-rich guy rant, but that’s not how I mean it. I just don’t like the saintly status that is given to dying celebrities.
Actually, from what I’ve read, it was the liberties taken in the movie Apollo 13 that pushed Hanks to produce From Earth to the Moon.
Actually, I hate to admit it, but Wrath is on to something. He just chose a bad example. A better example would be Meryl Streep addressing a session of freakin’ CONGRESS about the environment, just because she starred in Silkwood. Or how about Alec Baldwin going around trying to get legislation implemented to support his cause?
We are in danger of becoming a society ruled by a celebrity class. Hollywood as a political action committee and special interest group has WAY too much influence on our political process.
Especially because so many of the people who are actually influencing policy are out-of-touch spoiled babies with mediocre intellects and generally poor educations. So some clown gets a BFA in theater, manages to be able to create believable characters on screen, and suddenly he’s an expert on foreign policy?
You can’t sit through a Barbara Streisand concert without having to hear lectures on the ‘correct’ way to think. You can’t walk down a street in Washington without tripping over a Sheen, either engaging in a sit-down protest somewhere or waiting to be booked and fingerprinted.
Sit down some time and watch ‘Politically Incorrect’, that nightly vehicle for activist Hollywood. Observe the logic being displayed (or lack thereof). Now remember that each one of the talking fools on the screen has more political power than a thousand average citizens. And be afraid.
it’s the whole Hollywood movie-making machine who decides what is fit for the teeming masses to see, and what they should think and feel about it. Hollywood as a large, sheltered group jumps onto the bandwagon of their ‘cause du jour’, make their (usually one-sided and more or less inaccurate) movies about it which presents a skewed view of the cause, which has a huge impact on the viewing public, then they move on to the next sexy trend. Bah. Power with no responsibility always irritates me.