PDA

View Full Version : Was Sharon Stone grandstanding?


simon
30-01-2005, 02:12
A thread that may interest Rachel!

DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) - Angelina Jolie, the "Tomb Raider" star voted the sexiest woman alive, said on Saturday that celebrities grandstanding as advocates of the poor can do more harm than good.

"I think you can do damage," Jolie said, a day after fellow actress Sharon Stone raised $1 million in five minutes from business tycoons at the World Economic Forum in the Swiss ski resort of Davos with a spontaneous plea for generosity.

"Celebrities have a responsibility to know absolutely what they're talking about, and to be in it for the long run," said Jolie
(full article at: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=7473531)

Was Sharon Stone right to do what she did? Or has she done long-term damage to the cause of helping the world's poor by her actions?

The New York Times published an article discussing the issues:

DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan. 28 - At the World Economic Forum here, which has been called a "temple of capitalist narcissism," there is, it turns out, a force beyond money and might. Its name is celebrity - and on Friday, Sharon Stone showed why....
The full article is worth reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/29/business/29celebs.html

Here's a long article about the background to Davos:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/business/yourmoney/30davos.html?pagewanted=1&oref=login

PowerPuff Grrl
30-01-2005, 21:40
Angelina should look in the mirror. Adopting a child from a country that is known to have people kidnap children and sell them on the black market. Maybe cool for her but in the long run, she may have unitentionally created an even bigger demand of third world children from first world parents all due to her "celebrity," thus increasing the number of kidnapped children.

But on the whole, good for Sharon Stone. I quite honestly don't see the problem with using a star's appeal for good causes. I'd rather them shill for the UN than for Juicey Pants or something. And yeah Angelina, they would have to know a lot about what they they are talking about which would drastically reduce the number of dumb quotes from celebrities who say they have found fulfillment with the $2000 red string braclet they got for Kaballah.

freddie
30-01-2005, 22:01
I don't even get the rationale behind it. Why would it be wrong? Then all the Live Aid and Band Aid efforts were wrong as well?! Celebrity gather attention and money. It's what they do. Usually they do it for themselves. Sometimes at least they're doing something for greater 'cause. Even if the reasons behind it are narcissistic. Who cares? At least somepoor people will get something out of the narcissism of the rich. All's well.

Mossopp
30-01-2005, 23:57
I know a lot of celebrities give money to charity because, while helping unfortunates, it will also boost their own profile in the process. However, I don't think this is a bad thing - it's helping other people. At the end of the day, that is what is important.
Sandra Bullock gave $1,000,000 toward the tsumami appeal - noone accused her of showboating. Sharon Osbourne also gave a substantial amount of money towards the same cause - noone got on her case about it.
Angelina Jolie hasn't done much in the way of acting of late. I think her making radical statements in the press is just her way of making sure that noone forgets about her.
And I totally agree with PowerPuff's comment on Angelina's adoptive children. If one were cynical enough, they could view Angelina adopting foreign children as a cheap publicity stunt too. Is Angelina in any place to judge others on this subject??

ypsidan04
31-01-2005, 04:50
Can you imagine how they could choose one of those kids to be adopted by Angelina Jolie?

"Eneemeeneemineemo! Okay, you get to live with a millionaire actress the rest of your life, and you....well you'll probably spend most of the rest of your life doing work that no one else wants to do for pennies an hour." :bum:

Bitty2002
31-01-2005, 21:23
I honestly have no opinion either way...I don't particularly like Sharon Stone and I question her motives in general, because she seems sketchy and extremely desperate for attention. However, like most people, I think ultimately, even if she has her own motives, hopefully people will benefit. How does that hurt things in the long run?? I have no clue. But I understand Jolie's statement, that if people really want to help, they should know what they are getting themselves into and be in it for the long haul.

Mossopp- this is totally off topic, but I doubt lack of acting has much to do with Jolie's actions- she's actually been in a crap load of movies lately. She's like Jude Law at the moment. Can't say any of her movies will or have done well, but she's rarely been a Huge A lister, even with Tomb Raider - *gag*

Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005) (post-production) .... Jane Smith (<<<this one actually looks good to me)

Love and Honor (2004) .... Catherine the Great
Alexander (2004) .... Olympias
The Fever (2004) .... Revolutionary
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004) .... Franky
Shark Tale (2004) (voice) .... Lola
Taking Lives (2004) .... Illeana
Beyond Borders (2003) .... Sarah Jordan
... aka Jenseits aller Grenzen (Germany)
Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (2003) - Lara

simon
31-01-2005, 22:18
It's hard to know whether Angelina Jolie was actually criticising Sharon Stone, or whether her words were twisted by the press.

But the purpose of celebrities at Davos isn't to raise a million dollars in the way Sharon Stone did, it's to use the celebrities as hooks to get these business tycoons to take an interest in the issues. It's about networking to change opinions and policies. That was explained in the New York Times article I recommended you read. By comparison, Sharon Stone's approach seems rather unsubtle, basically shaming people into giving relatively small amounts of money. She won't be invited back. Maybe none of these campaigning celebrities will be? That would be a great shame, because the turn away from the 'greed is good' ideology towards social responsibility that Davos has taken this year has the potential to be worth far, far more than $1 million.

I thought Angelina Jolie's remarks were revealing. She feels a need to prove that she's more than just a pretty face, she knows about issues. Sharon Stone is rather different, she's famous for having a high IQ, so she can stand up and do something like that without everyone thinking she's just a flaky Hollywood star. Imagine if Angelina Joliehad done it. Although I think Sharon Stone was probably genuine in her motives, it was one of those occasions when even a bright person does something on the spur of the moment without thinking through the implications.

luxxi
31-01-2005, 22:47
I don't even get the rationale behind it. Why would it be wrong? Then all the Live Aid and Band Aid efforts were wrong as well?! Celebrity gather attention and money. It's what they do. Usually they do it for themselves. Sometimes at least they're doing something for greater 'cause. Even if the reasons behind it are narcissistic. Who cares? At least somepoor people will get something out of the narcissism of the rich. All's well.


So She collected $1 mio for mosquito nets. Great. Now what? Will Sharon stone go personally to nearest store say "I want $1 mio worth of mosquito nets" and then fly to Africa and give them to people in the need? Maybe, but somehow I doubt it.

What will more likelly happen is that she will give money to some organisation. Which will spend it in ways they feel it's best. Chances are that money woun't be spent as well as it woudl be had it been prepared before.

this is why I'm sceptical of such ad hoc actions. They might help but not always. Best way to help is to give money to organisations who know what to do with it.

:newyear: