Saturday, December 18, 2004

A JOLIE GOOD TIME...

Angelina Jolie appeared last night on this British discussion show called HARDTALK, which is, as the name implies, usually pretty hardhitting, politcally divisive stuff, meaning that the host grills the guests over the coals until they either cry 'uncle' or the program gives way to a commerical -- only this was a big-time-beautiful-famous-Hollywood-actress-kind-of- guest, so the questions were soft, sensitive, sympathetic. (I think the host was probably hoping to sleep with her, actually...)

They discussed her work with the UN, which mostly involves serving as a spokeswoman for various international causes related to issues involving landmines, refugees, etc. She has been to Sudan and Sierre Leone and basically every other horrible place on the earth, although she hasn't hit Welland, Ontario yet. (Maybe after the Fallujah thing settles down for good?)

She also talked quite a bit about Cambodia; she has an adopted Cambodian son, and has built a house up in Battambang province, although I'm not too sure how often she stays there. (I'm betting bi-annually, for a week or so at a time.) A few months back she was here in Cambodia, meeting with Prime Minister Hun Sen, flashing that Joker-smile of hers, talking carefully about how she would consider quite sincerely their offer of Cambodian citizenship. Last night on the British show she said she would accept it, so I guess she's decided to take the plunge and tie herself even further to the country.

There's two ways to look at celebrities like Jolie: 1) That she's a publicity desperate, emotionally
starved egotistical actress who is desperate for attention; or 2) That she's a genuinely good person who has led a life of extreme privilege, was gradually made aware of the fact that there's a wider, more severe world out there, and then, given what she has, and what is able to give, decided to do something about it.

I choose the latter explanation. Yes, she's probably spoiled, and arrogant, and condescending. (But aren't we all?) And it seems somewhat hypocritical to fly in and out of these places for a brief inspection tour of misery and carnage.

At the same time, as she herself said in interview, she found it hard to believe that people would think that she did all of this work with refugees, flew all over the world, witnessed all of this heartbreak, just so she could pretend that she enjoyed helping people. That's what it boils down to, I think; she's helping people. Not as much as the aid workers who give their lives, no, but she draws attention to causes, and arouses curiosity in young people, and perhaps sheds a little light, gets a little news time, for issues that would otherwise be neglected if a gorgeous film star wasn't discussing them through pouty, bee-stung lips.

And I can guarantee that the people she meets in refugee camps (and in Cambodia itself) do not hold any grudges whatsoever against her. They are poor, and they need help, and they see this foreign woman who would like to talk to them, listen to them, perhaps comfort them. They are told that she is important; they understand that she will listen.

And she is there.

That seems to be the clincher. She doesn't have to do this stuff. I don't imagine it's easy touring the havoc of Sudan, and I can testify that it's not easy to witness the maimed and the emotion-
ally torn in Cambodia. It takes something out of you. It also puts something back INto you as well, something foreign and invigorating.

The next time a celebrity appears on t.v., by all means, hold them up to scrutiny. Ask yourself why they are doing this, and what they're getting out of it, and what we're supposed to view them as -- martyrs, opportunists, wankers.

But remember that somewhere in the world there was a little boy or girl (definitely poor, most likely starving) who talked to that celebrity, and perhaps they smiled, possibly even laughed, and for a moment or two, someone was there. Someone listened. That Hollywood star left, yes, flew up, up and away, into the blue, that's true, but it was a moment, nevertheless; it was real and genuine and heartfelt. And I think that the poor (and maybe all of us) live from moment to moment, so one instant in time carries more weight than you may imagine. One moment can carry everything.