Ernest Giglio's Here's Looking At You: Hollywood, Film, and Politics draws a distinction between films and politics. But what interested me the most about this reading was the issue of the blurred line between celebrity status and political stature, which is a discussion that has come up time and time again in class. Ronald Regan was a Hollywood actor before being elected president. Arnold Schwarzenegger is now the "Governator" of California. Even Steven Colbert tried to run for president in the 2008 election. So of course, this leads perfectly into the case of Sarah Palin, whose reality series "Sarah Palin's Alaska" premieres next week.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101115/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticspalin;_ylt=AvikoVYtZJDVyVHMWthPPZayFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJta205bDR0BGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDEwMTExNS91c3BvbGl0aWNzcGFsaW4EcG9zAzE0BHNlYwN5bl9hcnRpY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDcmlzaW5ndXNtZWRp
The above article discusses the insane amount of power that Palin has acquired since 2008. Feelings about this are completely divided -- some people feel that her popularity would be an asset to the Republican party, while others are frankly afraid of the rate at which Hurricane Palin is gaining strength. Regardless of whether or not you agree with her policies, she is the perfect example of how a politician can use their celebrity to obtain a position in politics.
There are two ways we can look at this phenomenon. On the one hand, many of Sarah Palin's recent actions are backed by applaud-worthy public relations. She's written books, has chosen to star in a reality show, and additionally, it's probably no coincidence that the nation's most popular teen mom, Bristol Palin, is now on the most popular reality show on television, Dancing With the Stars. From a public relations standpoint, Sarah Palin is doing everything right. She fully embraces the idea of the "image is everything" presidency, and has made countless efforts to maintain her image as an extraordinary "common man" figure. I may even dare to say that much of Palin's support comes from her relate-ability rather than her actual policies or her abilities as a political figure.
On the other hand, building one's own celebrity status to gain political popularity seems somewhat manipulative. While most politicians ride on past political contributions during a presidential campaign, Palin will be relying mostly on her popularity as a reality star and a media sensation. Though she has made an effort to be more politically active in the past two years, I think it is fair to say that, if a non-celebrity figure with Sarah Palin's political history tried to run for president, they probably wouldn't be taken very seriously.
Using celebrity status to gain political stature certainly has its fair share of both positive and negative attributes, but what do you think this means for politics? Is it a good thing that politicians have the option of garnering support through celebrity status? Does political fandom actually help boost nationalism? Or do you feel that this kind of fandom will actually hurt the political process?
----
Ernest Giglio, Here’s Looking at You: Hollywood, Film & Politics (New York: Peter Lang, 2002), Ch. 1& 6
I today’s times many political figures are looked at a celebrities because of everything that they do with the media. With more and more celebrity status people running or even just getting involved with politics it is hard to say politics is not a form of celebreality. The classic examples or Ronald Reagan who was a Hollywood actor before becoming governor of California and then eventually President, Arnold Schwarzenegger currently as governor, and now Sarah Palin. For two of these three they entered the political world with a large amount of confidence and were loved by many. Schwarzenegger and Reagan were very well known individuals before they entered a political office. This helped them because they were familiar with the spotlight and how to handle the media. This allowed them to transfer there celebrity status into the political world. As for Sarah Palin she gained her celebrity status after her attempt with John McCain running for President. She is now in my opinion referred to by many as a celebrity rather than a politician. Is this a way to get more people out to vote? I think yes. If you have celebrities who have good ideas and are favored by many individuals then they might just try running for a political office. As it states on page 92, in The Image-Is-Everything Presidency “Since 1960, voter participation in presidential races has declined in a fairly steady fashion.” With more celebrity status people beginning to run the awareness of political campaigns I feel is very high. Now whether people end up actually voting that is a different story. Some would say that allowing celebrities to run for political offices is going to hurt our country in the long run because they do not know what is best for us. My response to that is that these people did not become famous just because they are who they are; they voiced their opinions either through song, film, or other media sources. They became celebrities because they are so loved by many for what they do, so why can’t they run for a political office? They are liked by so many if they were to take office they would have the support of many people and these supporters could then go on to help spread this persons views. I do not disagree with celebrity figures running for political offices as long as the celebrity is someone who has knowledge and is admired by many, I think it could provide a type of national collaboration by getting everyone involved with politics and making it fun.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteToday, there is a fine line between what constitutes a celebrity and a politician. This line is created, according to Ernest Giglio, because of the growing unclear distinction between the two. “Whereas in the past individuals usually entered political life through the practice of law, public service, or business, it is acceptable today for candidates in the entertainment field to test their popularity in the political arena” (Giglio 8). The cultural norm created is due to what Richard Waterman refers to as the “image-is-everything presidency”. This can create a president or other political figure to be nominated and ultimately elected on the basis of their appearance rather than their policies. As we have learned through the course of the semester, this can be detrimental to our nation when politics just becomes about the image and not the issues that help move our country forward.
ReplyDeleteHowever, just the opposite can be true too. If a candidate were to run on a platform with great policies, but was not relatable to the American public, possessed charisma, or had an exceptional appearance, we would not think twice about giving them our vote. We look for a balance between an image-conscious and policy-driven candidate. Too much of either side is viewed negatively, and rightfully so. The question becomes whether or not stardom and fame should be a part of politics and, if the candidate with the best appearance is the most qualified.
I think the public needs to be able to relate to the figure that governs our nation. Without this, there is limited communication between the president, the administration, and the American people. This “relate-ability” may come from trying to enhance a politician’s image to appear more like a “common man”, which done in moderation can be beneficial. Jess points out that “using celebrity status to gain political stature certainly has its fair share of both positive and negative attributes”. There is no doubt celebrities succeed because of how the public perceives them, so is bringing a celebrity into the political spotlight valuable? American politics should strive to obtain a balance to help have our political figures appear to know what they are doing in office, and have the ability to govern and make decisions that benefit our nation.
The relationship between Hollywood and politics has been around for some time. “Domestically, Hollywood has been actively involved in political campaigns since the days of the studio moguls. What is different today is the magnitude of its involvement and its largess” (Giglio 6). By having celebrities endorse political parties and candidates, a relationship is formed between the two. If celebrities can promote a political figure, who is to say they cannot become one? There is a difference between being image-conscious and having your image be the only reason for your candidacy. The latter is detrimental to American politics; however, I believe this relationship will continue to grow in the years to come with the advent of ever growing media that allows such figures to be at the forefront of American’s minds at all times.
In the book, Here’s Looking at You: Hollywood, Film, and Politics, author Ernest Giglio states, “but what is truly alarming, however, is that Hollywood money gains the industry an unequal amount of access and an inordinate amount of influence while it blurs the line between public office and celebrity statue” (4). This quote emulates the notion that today it seems politics and Hollywood go hand in hand. It used to be two separate arenas: Washington and Hollywood. Each arena had different kinds of people, they focused on different aspects, and ultimately they ran parallel to each other, never intersecting. However, eventually the lines between the two arenas crossed resulting in a mixture of the two.
ReplyDeleteThe “culture of celebrity” that was commonly found in Hollywood can now be seen in Washington and in the nature of politics (4). Jess looks to Ronald Reagan, an actor turned President and Arnold Schwarzenegger, an actor turned Governor. Reagan and Schwarzenegger illustrate the point that Washington and politics, and Hollywood and celebrities are no longer two separate arenas. When a politician becomes an elected official and enters the political spotlight, the person simultaneously assumes a celebrity-like status and in turn receives an abundant amount of media coverage. Jess also mentions Sarah Palin’s ability to enter then political arena spotlight and almost overnight achieve celebrity-like status. Now, Sarah Palin is everywhere, writing books, making speeches and countless public appearances, starring in her own reality show, and endorsing several Tea Party candidates. Regardless of how one chooses to look at it, whether it be celebrities use Hollywood status to gain political strength or politicians use political strength to gain celebrity status, the fact that Hollywood and Washington are no longer regarded as two separate playing fields raises all kinds of questions as to where we go from here.
Ernest Giglio, Here’s Looking at You: Hollywood, Film & Politics (New York: Peter Lang, 2002), Ch. 1& 6.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile we have had past presidents who previously held positions as movie stars and actors, I agree with Jess that there is an uprise in the blurred line between celebrity and politician. Whether we agree with whether or not politicians should have their own reality shows, there is a motive behind it. I think American politicians realized a problem with American society, and that was a lack of interest in government and politics. What are American's interested in? Reality television, gossip and celebrities. For politicians then it seems the easiest way to get the attention needed to be elected is to strive for the attention that was ordinarily only given to movie actors and rock stars.
ReplyDeleteI think the main point Giglio fails to acknowledge in his piece is that the blurred line between celebrity and politician was not accidental, nor was it done over night. Now the success of a political campaign is based on whether or not you were asked to speak on Ellen. While stump speeches are posted on youtube and the news media still analyzes every word in every speech, the American public pays more attention to the world of celebrities, and that is the world politicians have decided to go after.