H'wood's latest craze: Generosity
Credit Angelina Jolie, at least in part, for Hollywood's change of heart. Her efforts on behalf of the United Nations to help poverty-stricken children -- she's looking to adopt her third, and trudges around the world to be photographed with many others -- seem to have set a new tone. (Sure, Mia Farrow made multiple adoptions 20 years ago, but she just came off as weird.)
Jolie and consort Brad Pitt have given both time and money to the causes they espouse. More important, they've managed to turn the cameras away from themselves and onto the plight of the poverty-stricken.
The bar on charitable efforts was raised further recently when mega-investor Warren Buffett revealed he would sign over most of his considerable fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And right on the heels of that, Bono and Bob Geldof beat the drum again to urge rich countries to make good on their pledges to Africa. Then Nic Cage popped up at the UN to donate $2 million to rehabilitate child soldiers.
Being socially responsible, it seems, is now the rage.
Here's how the unassuming Buffett described his decision: "You look for easy things in business. Philanthropy is just the opposite. You're tackling problems that have resisted great intellects and often great money. You're going to make mistakes, have failures, be disappointed with people."
Folks in Hollywood should easily relate to that description of philanthropy (hey, it's just like moviemaking!). Problem is, they probably won't settle for the low-key Buffett approach. They'll want to natter on about their causes and their charities rather than their sex lives or even their latest movie.
That's what Jolie has managed astutely to do -- so much so that the pouty-lipped actress is perceived less as a man-stealing vixen than as a politically aware and morally engaged celebrity activist. While Jolie gets to address deep questions about world hunger in interviews, all Jennifer Aniston is asked to talk about is ... Vince Vaughn.
My bet is that Aniston --who has a steady supply of "Friends" paychecks -- will find a way to deepen her own public persona via her deeper pockets.
As for Jolie, she's been quoted as saying she feels vastly overpaid for what she does.
One wonders how other A-list thesps, who are making as much or more than Jolie, feel about that sentiment. They're not likely to tell us, but somehow I think public expectations will spur some to open their wallets ever wider.
(Biggest showbiz givers on current official lists include Oprah Winfrey, David Geffen and Haim Saban, but no stars.)
Such largesse would be in keeping with a general uptick in giving across the country, and a greater interest in what the money is actually accomplishing.
A spokesman for the Chronicle of Philanthropy, a bi-weekly that tracks charitable giving, confirms contributions are up noticeably in the last 18 months, and that "the celeb effect" is spilling over into the general population.
That too is a switch.
When Ted Turner publicly pledged to give $1 billion over 10 years to the United Nations nine years ago, his gesture was mostly met with a yawn.
As it turned out, he wasn't able to deliver the full sum, after seeing the bulk of his wealth go up in smoke with AOL Time Warner. And I'm guessing there were similar slips between pledge and actual donation among Hollywood donors after the Internet bubble burst.
But in the post-9/11 world, there are new reasons why giving has become a cool thing to do.
Poverty, war and disease are still rampant around the globe. But now there's also a fairly virulent strain of anti-Americanism at large and a government perceived, at least in Hollywood, to be stingy and myopic.
Plus, we're again living in a Gilded Age, where the disparities between the haves and the have-nots have widened. Even in Hollywood, the gap between the A-list and everybody else has ballooned.
On the plus side, there's evidence strides are being made to combat some of the ills that plague the world. The outpouring of U.S. aid for tsunami victims in Asia was a positive sign that action, from both the public and the private sector, can make a difference. Similarly, the discovery of drugs that cost-effectively fight AIDS, malaria and other illnesses has encouraged more entities, including the Bush government, to earmark greater sums to fight these problems.
Seeing results, in short, is probably a greater motivator than even guilt.
As for the public, I'm guessing it'll split on the issue:
Many will continue to want stars to be rich, glamorous and sexy -- and nothing more. But a growing contingent of fans, while not begrudging stars their wealth, will expect them to dole at least some of it out.
