13 November 2007

In a recent article about the perks of being the children of Hollywood's elite, there is an interesting term used: "Hollywood's ruling class" (Brooks Barnes, "The Littlest Big Shots," The New York Times, 4 November 2007). Despite the equality touted in American democracy, Hollywood apparently wants no part of it. Instead, it is all about control, class, influence and the almighty totem pole of power.

Hollywood as an adult High School gone terribly, terribly wrong.

Rather than instill values of charity, philanthropy, and giving, Hollywood parents encourage receiving, demanding perks, and one-upmanship, thus leaving behind a legacy of ego.

Although this may be too sweeping a generalization, the facts are clear. So what does this say about the present state of (American) culture?

Perhaps a better question is: what is culture today?

There is a precedence of actors going into politics in America. In a way, it is a respectable move and one not without a degree of merit. Reagan was President of the Screen Actors Guild before he became the 40th President of the United States. Schwarzenegger is well-known for being the Terminator before becoming Governor of California.

So why did we award a politician who was Hollywood-struck?

Nobel Peace Prize recipients have a long tradition of achievement, accomplishment, and effect qua change. Granted, quite a few scientists who won the Prize also went on to write some rather disturbing theories - dare say, nonsense - but for the most part, the Prize accurately symbolized a quality of intellect and contribution to the enhancement of culture (George Johnson, "Bright Scientists, Dim Notions," The New York Times, 28 October 2007). When Al Gore received the prestigious Prize because of a global warming film he participated in - perhaps more for Hollywood than for global climate awareness - the state of intellect and culture truly becomes disturbing.

A couple of UN scientists recently published a report on the state of global warming and the deleterious effects of human consumption, pollution, and contamination on other species, so where is their Nobel (James Kanter, "U.N. Warns of Rapid Decay of Environment," The New York Times, 26 October 2007)?

I never met Gore. He might be a great humanitarian who genuinely believes in preventing global warming. Although appearances may be deceiving, it appears he is a politician desperate to be a part of the Hollywood elite.

He is like a backward-Schwarzenegger.

I try not to 'pick bones' with politicians because I acknowledge that the integrity of American democracy is far from intact and I am powerless to change this fact. However, as a politician, Gore is rather careless. When he spoke to an audience and made the blanket statement to the effect that post-modernism is nihilistic and selfish, he dismissed a generation of salient critical thinkers and denied a quality of cultural intellect.

Norman Mailer one-ups Gore on this front. Before I continue, I must mention this disclaimer:

There is a Latin adage that states, "de mortuis, nil nisi bonum" (of the dead, speak nothing but good). In the spirit of this adage, I let you be the judge.

With Mailer's recent passing, news articles and reporters are quick to mention his two Pulitzers. It is generally accepted that if you win a Prize or have an impressive CV, you are an accomplished, intelligent person contributing to culture. What is black and white on the CV is an accurate reflection of the person and his character.

I beg to differ.

In a photographic documentary of Marliyn Monroe, Mailer shared a very telling anecdote - telling because it betrays his true character. Roughly, it goes like this:

There was a point in Monroe's life when she separated herself from the Hollywood studio in pursuit of dramatic acting, better roles, and honing her craft. She was one of the first to fight the studio and win. She had the courage to make this monumental change and moved to New York to study with Lee Strasberg. Once news spread of her participation in the Strasberg studio, it became packed daily.

One day, Mailer was in the audience, sitting a couple of rows in front of Monroe. He had the opportunity to meet a legend and he passed on it not out of fear, but instead, because she was not wearing make-up, her nose appeared a little red, and she was wearing a baggy black sweater. Here is a man who based a decision solely on appearance. He judged an iconic legend solely on an 'off' day. This is the same man who claimed to want to write the 'Great American Novel' but failed to do so. And he won two Pulitzers.

It is interesting that in the same documentary, photographers time and again mention Monroe's beauty as surpassing the make-up. As photographers, I think they would be the ones to know about true beauty. In contradistinction to this is a man who spat at the opportunity to meet Monroe because he could not see past the lack of make-up.

Myopia, perhaps?

A few years ago, Time Magazine ran a poll of their 'Person of the Year'. The choice narrowed down to two: Mother Theresa or Princess Diana. The fact that there was even a debate between these two individuals is a very sorry statement about the state of our culture. Time's decision is an even sorrier statement. They went with the Princess.

Time chose a person whose duty it was to be involved in charity while living in a PALACE, wearing priceless royal JEWELS, and attending very public balls, dinners, and extravaganzas. To her credit, she raised two children. She also had time to have extramarital affairs while also suffering from a self-destructive eating disorder. Although she divorced her Prince, she was resilient enough to bounce back with a millionaire son of a Department Store owner. To speak plainly, without the airs of royalty, she was a divorced mother of two involved in charities that appealed to her aesthetic and humanitarian interests.

In contrast, Mother Theresa - a Saint in every sense - used her powers of love, caring, humanity, and touch to be with lepers, the suffering, and the diseased. She led by example, but she led an extraordinary example, unparalleled except by Jesus. She may not have turned water into wine, but many claimed to witness her heal by touch. She was selflessness personified. She is truly Example par Excellence.

Nobel aside, the fact that she was passed over for Princess Diana is a clarion call to the end of Values, Integrity, and Culture par Excellence and a signpost to the indelible rise of the foudroyant superficial and the obviated Culture of Past.

Or is it?

Perhaps a reevaluation will uncover a new category of culture and attest to the indefatigable endurance of the critical thinker...