Clooney Means Well, But He's Full of It
Tuesday, March 7, 2006 at 10:26PM 
At Sunday’s Academy Awards, George Clooney won in the Best Supporting Actor category for his role in ‘Syriana’. During he acceptance speech he said:
"Finally, I would say that we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while, I think. It’s probably a good thing. We’re the ones who talk about AIDS when it was being whispered. and we talked about Civil rights when it wasn’t really popular and we bring up subjects… we’re the ones….this academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I’m proud to be a part of this Academy. I’m proud to be part of this community and I’m proud to be out of touch."
Watch the Video (hat tip: Expose the Left)
(Interestingly enough, Clooney’s movie Syriana was filmed in the United Arab Emirates…. good enough for Hollywood to make a buck off of but not good enough for the United States to do business with…the UAE is deciding whether or not to show the movie in that country; good for them)
While it’s nice that the Academy gave an Oscar to Hattie McDaniel, Clooney exaggerated the reach of "the Academy" on civil rights. Let’s be real: Hattie McDaniel played Mammy, a maidservant at best to Scarlett O’Hara, drenched in racist stereotypes and caricatures. In fact, its hard to find a photograph of Hattie McDaniel receiving the Oscar from the Academy Clooney is so proud to be out of touch with, but the US Postal service honored her with her own stamp. Which is a more dignified tribute?
Hollywood honoring Hattie US Postal Service honoring Hattie
Here are some other progressive Hollywood movies honoring African Americans:
Dimples with Shirley Temple (1936) 20th Century Fox:
Uncle Tom’s Bungalow (1937) Warner Bros.:
Everybody Sing with Judy Garland (1938) Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer:
These do not include the hundreds of films with A-list Hollywood stars that cast blacks as stuttering maids and bumbling butlers with the most disgusting of stereotypes up until the 1960’s. This is how Hollywood chose to "talk about civil rights" when "blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters." I’m sure African Americans felt honored.
"We talked about civil rights when it wasn’t really popular and we bring up subjects… we’re the ones…" gushed Clooney. An oversite, I’m sure, but he forgot to mention the millions of soldiers during the American Civil War who died to end slavery or Abraham Lincoln who signed the Emancipation Proclamation ending slavery.
For Clooney to suggest that Hollywood by and large had anything to do with helping the Civil Rights movement rather than to ride on it’s coattails to make a dollar is less than truthful.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/405713
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (32)
His comments apply better to non-Hollywood films, but even then only a subset.
Do you think Tom's black owner in Tom and Jerry cartoons is racist? I can't decide...
For example, while I really enjoyed Brokeback Mountain's portrayal of homosexuality, that doesn't erase all the movies Hollywood has made that degrade homosexuals.
As for Tom & Jerry, I don't know that Jerry had a black owner. When did this happen? I have never liked T & J so I cannot make a worthy comment.
I have not seen Brokeback Mountain, although I am tempted to. I suppose it depends on what your definition of "degrade" is then.
Degrade is an interesting term. I think one way Hollywood degrades is to consistently give stereotypical roles. They have definitely degraded homosexuals in this way.
Why doesn't anyone see that it is NOT just the African-Americans (I do not like that term) who are portrayed as servants and such.
The Hispanics were also segregated and treated like garbage throughout American history and continues today.
And what about the American Indians?
Hollywood should make more movies where the hero is a married man, has a family, works for a living, lives a good life and defeats one of the many scum elements that exist here in the USA. Michael Graham has a good article this week that also addresses this. Up soon.
How on earth are children in Iraq "more free" than children here? In your analysis, remember that being caught between our military and insurgants is a mark against their freedom.
Amen Sister! Tell it like it is... not the way those self-absorbed Hollyweird elitists want to believe it is. You go girl!
Regards...
Chief RZ, I agree with most of what you said except this:
"Wouldn't it be nice if we had a country like Iraq where children are now free". I think you were making a point about respecting the military but am unsure. You mentioned Hollywood corruption and I do know that Muslim countries tend to Hollywood and it's pervertedness and use it as a reason to hate us. I do believe, despite all her shortcomings, that America is the best country in the world. Freedom brings an excess of liberty sometimes (as the US has proven with porn, etc.) and Iraq will have its fair share of that in time.
Meg, despite that statement, I caution you about belittling the plight of Iraqi children. They love American soldiers and are better off now than ever in their lives. The violence of Saddam and the Baathist party was far worse than the violence of terrorists hitting civilian targets. Also, you might want to modify your statement:
"remember that being caught between our military and insurgants is a mark against their freedom."
Even al-Zarqawi says the US military and coalition forces are not the focus of terrorist and insurgent attacks anymore, but civilians are. It's not so much that children are getting caught in the cross fire, although some are, but they area being targeted.
Even so,they are better off than under Saddam.
I agree that Cloony meant well but to cite Hattie MacDaniel's Oscar as a source of pride for the academy was misguided. While she was good in GWTW, she was still playing a mammy . Granted she took that part a little beyond the usual mammy, but that pwas pretty much Hollywood's view of African-Americans of the day.
AMY -
Great post and excellent point - until reading your comments, I actually gave Clooney (more or less) a pass on his predictably left-leaning comments. It could have been MUCH worse.
But now that you mention it, Hollywood was as much at fault as in the right on racism against blacks. Look at the comedies of the 70's...Sanford and Son, Good Times, That's My Momma, Diff'rent Strokes. Not exactly ground breaking stuff -- the acting was REALLY bad, and the stories campy and predictable.
Clooney (let's be honest) is now experiencing Tom Cruise syndrome...or is that Sean Penn's Disease? You know, the one where an actor becomes so self-important he (or she) thinks that they can tell us (even those of us much more educated than they are) how to think, feel, vote and live.
I don't want to live in Meg's world. She loves to tell others what they should think and do to be as "enlightened" as she thinks she is.
She has a problem with reality and people who live in reality. She can't accept Johnny's or other soldier's perspective on Iraq because they've been there and are brainwashed or so she must think with her comments.
As for Hollyweird, out of sight is out of Meg's mind. Hollyweird has made MANY movies and "Music Videos" that have celebrated the gang life and gang culture. To read Meg's comments, if she hasn't seen them, they must not exist, just like positives in Iraq. She isn't there and would not go there her whole psyche may be destroyed from the reality.
As for Messer. Clooney, he is a dolt. I wish some of the behind the camera observations and such that I have are for publication. Mr. Clooney would not look so good to the "Megs" of the world.
And Hollywood has been even worse on the Hispanics than the African-Americans in making them look like morons.
Think back and look at the movies and tv now. Who are still the housekeepers, etc?
I'm very pleased with certain films - eg. Chaplin's "the great dictator," which mocked Hitler before it was obvious that he needed mocking - so I can understand Clooney's point too, he's just being over-selective.
>>>"Let’s be real: Hattie McDaniel played Mammy, a maidservant at best to Scarlett O’Hara, drenched in racist stereotypes and caricatures. In fact, its hard to find a photograph of Hattie McDaniel receiving the Oscar from the Academy Clooney is so proud to be out of touch with, but the US Postal service honored her with her own stamp. Which is a more dignified tribute?"
I will agree with you to some extent on this one. I, too have some problems with Hollywood's treatment of African-Americans. I have a far LARGER problem with AMERICA'S treatment of African-Americans.
When "Gone With the Wind" came out in 1939, my mother, as a young girl growing up in Richmond, VA watched it from the segregated balcony section of the local theater, which had separate bathrooms and separate water fountains. None of these segregated accomodations had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Hollywood, the Academy, or liberals for that matter. In this case, George Clooney is absolutely correct.
Also, you have to take account the time period, and the state of racial interaction in America. Today, many people seem to take for granted a Denzel Washington hugging and smiling at Julia Roberts in "The Pelican Brief", or Will Smith's double entendre's with Linda Fiorentino in "Men in Black", but such activities in some areas of the South before the CRA of 1964 could've gotten a black man lynched (Emmit Till).
Now, there was a movement in film at that time where black performers were given a chance to play roles that weren't as blatantly stereotypical (still reflective of the times, however). They were called "race films", and it's an interesting topic to tie in to this one.
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/corliss/article/0,9565,237512,00.html
But those were independent films specifically targetted to the African-American audience. In 1939, a film showing an attractive, successful African-American who wasn't dancing or singing in an INTERRACIAL cast would probably have been banned in much of America, and that's not Hollywood's fault.
--Cobra
As far as Chaplin's 'The Great Dictator', my understanding was that he made the film at the time because nobody (including Chaplin himself) knew what was really going on. I need to do some digging but I swear to remember a quote from him saying that in retrospect he wishes he hadn't made the film.
Amy,
It's kind of sad. The last vestige of respect I had for George Clooney is gone. I really wish entertainers would learn that "speaking their mind" like this alienates their fans. If their audience agrees with them (which apparently only happens 49% of the time at best) then nothing is gained. If their audience disagrees, they're turned off.
I'll probably always dig 'Oceans 11' though...
Clooney's a very effective film actor. That needn't be disputed. I don't think his fame should disbar him from speaking his mind. Lots of us enjoy speaking our minds too, and I doubt that eg. Amy would stop doing that if she happened to be a Hollywood actress. I'm OK with disagreeing with people.
Clooney's good looking, but that's about all he's got going for him. His looks are tainted by his attitude as far as I'm concerned.
Jez, it's more a matter of support. I have never seen Fahrenheit 9/11 because I refuse to give Michael Moore a dime. If it comes on TV I'll watch it; otherwise, I cannot support it. Same thing with Clooney or these movies. Many conservatives in particular feel like we are "funding our own oppression" like the blacks in the south who paid to ride the bus so they could sit in the back and enjoy 2nd class status.
Lots of the entertainers I like are right wing. The makers of South Park are republican (and their sympathy with traditional values is clear in their shows). Perhaps I'm not as lefty as you are righty. Anyway, I don't believe conservatives in America are oppressed. You have your president and a majority in Congress. Even if you are oppressed, it's not in the same league as segragation.
I do get the point about F9/11, but avoiding a film because of an actor's views is further than I would go. It'd be like avoiding a bridge because of an archtect's view of cuisine. It just doesn't enter the calculation for me. Perhaps I am unusual: I have made a point of seeing old Fasciest propaganda films, which I most certainly don't agree with.
I think you're exaggerating.
I think you can talk about Jesus just as much as you want: and you do.
And southpark does have a lot of conservative sympathies. (or at least mocks the more wooly-headed aspects of liberalism). I don't expect you have seen much of it, because of the dirty words. (fairly realistic for school-kids, as i recall).
And, of course, you have the government. This somehow adds up to oppression?? I love you guys!
Republicans author South Park? That's a shame. I find it disgusting and repulsive. I recall one episode that had a boy in a wheel chair. Makes me want to vomit just recalling it.
Timmy's a regular character. They don't make fun of him, in fact the main characters are always happy to include him in their activities. A fine example to us all. I wouldn't recommend it to your kids for a couple of years, but I think for adults it's great, and very traditional at heart.
"South Park" co-creator Matt Stone responded sharply in an interview with The Associated Press Monday, saying, "This is 100 percent having to do with his faith of Scientology... He has no problem — and he's cashed plenty of checks — with our show making fun of Christians."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187756,00.html