What Do Stan Laurel, a Shark and Hillary Have In Common?
[Listen or download Burt's reading of this story in MP3]
A symbiotic relationship is one in which both parties benefit. Some of these are stranger than others, and some even manage to benefit those outside the relationship. For instance, consider Laurel and Hardy. Stan Laurel, the Englishman, had already had a long career in variety and silent films just as the Georgia native, Oliver Hardy, had had an equally long apprenticeship in vaudeville and the movies before Hal Roach had a brainstorm and teamed them up. The end result was much better than the sum of its parts as proven by the fact that after 80 years the boys are still garnering belly laughs.
Another terrific example was Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire. She had already appeared in several forgettable movies without causing much of a stir, while Astaire, after making a screen test which led one studio executive to observe that, although he could sing a little and dance a little, he was skinny, balding and looked like a whippet. However, once they were teamed up in “Flying Down to Rio,” they went on to make motion picture history in such movies as “Top Hat,” “Carefree” and “The Gay Divorcee.” In describing the special magic they had together, someone concluded that he gave her class and she gave him sex appeal.
Mother Nature provides an extraordinary example of a symbiotic relationship — the one that exists between sharks and pilot fish. The shark could have pilots for breakfast, lunch, dinner and a midnight snack. But the little guys are never on the sharks’ menu because the pilots provide them with an indispensable service; they act as nautical toothpicks, picking out bits of food that would otherwise collect and lead to tooth decay and, I assume, gum disease. In short, the pilots are a lot like Hollywood gofers except that they don’t have to chauffeur the stars’ kids and collect the dry cleaning. They’re also paid better, shown more respect and, occasionally, the sharks even bother learning their names.
There are other examples of such relationships, and one of the unfortunate ones that leaps to mind is that which exists between liberal politicians and those engaged in show business. People might assume that it’s a one-way street and that it’s only the office holders who benefit. They, after all, receive multi-millions of dollars from the likes of Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Larry David, George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, Billy Crystal, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen, David Geffen, Steven Spielberg, Robert Redford, Jane Fonda, Bruce Springsteen, Michael Moore, Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks. It’s not just the checks they write themselves, but the fund-raising events they host and at which they appear that help fill the campaign coffers of such people as Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama.
But what, you ask, do the politicians provide in return? It’s the one thing that these celebrities crave so desperately, and which their gaggle of agents, managers, publicists and assorted sycophants simply can’t deliver; namely, gravitas.
It’s not enough, after all, that the world envy them their fame and fortune. These assorted high school drop-outs and high maintenance nincompoops want to be taken seriously.
So, when you see Leonardo DiCaprio standing beside Al Gore as the Nobel laureate prattles on about global warming, the subliminal message is that young DiCaprio could be off somewhere frolicking with bimbos and working on his tan, but because he’s a serious fellow with grave matters on his mind, he’s right there on stage trying to stay awake and look intelligent.
And after the speech, what then? Well, I’m not sure, but I’ve always assumed that DiCaprio sticks around for a while and helps Mr. Gore floss his teeth.
So, what symbiotic relationship might explain why some folks put so much weight into the opinions of these pilot fish in the first place? One theory: those who profess the same political beliefs of their idols feel a vicarious sense of adoration. It works something like this: If I feel the same way about an issue that Oprah does, and Oprah is adored my millions, could I not also be so adored for thinking the same way? Plausible explanation or not, adopting the opinions of the famous, not matter how smart or ignorant, is at least an easy way out for those not willing to think for themselves.
“It’s not enough, after all, that the world envy them their fame and fortune. These assorted high school drop-outs and high maintenance nincompoops want to be taken seriously.”
You’re talking about bloggers, right?
Perhaps the hapless celeb’s attatch themselves to social issues because they want to displace some of the guilt they have for not really doing something important by acting.
Spencer Tracy said, “Plumbing is a more honorable profession than acting.” Robert Mitchum said, ” What’s so hard about acting? You learn the lines, you go on the set and say them then you go home.”
Just a thought. I really don’t have the time to figure out the celebrity mind.
Yawn. Why the heck should I care about your opinion? Go get stuffed.
Blogging is a waste of bandwith.
Glitz for gravitas, right. More like brain-farts for blowhards, sycophants for suck-ups or hoties for hot air. These people crave the public adoration of the ring-kissers. Biggest difference is that the average politician can think on his feet, whereas most actors(being dumb as posts)need scripts to look intelligent.
Actually, they’re all acting.
My question is, why so many seemingly normal Americans fawn over and tolerate their endless and inane drivel?
Somehow, I figure these not-funny pairings has something to do with religion – or lack of it – and power. After making obscene amounts of easy money for playing flawed or even demented personalities, and having spent it on every possible whim,impulse,and exhorbitant foolishnes conceivable, the Hollywood creature looks for some kind of relief from his seared conscience while at the same time, seeking to fulfill the last lust not immediately available to him -political power. Didn{t >marx say that politics is the real opiate of the godless…somthing like that. Latching onto leftist political causes with mesianic fervor and religious zeal, they get to both believe that their excesses and selfishness are atoned for, while getting a rare thrill in a life where nothing excites anymore.
Has anyone asked Fred Thompson what he thinks of B-list celebrities meddling in politics? Maybe that could be part of his next PJM interview.
But what, you ask, do the politicians provide in return? …gravitas.
gravitas by proxy
It’s always embarrassing to read a Babs Streisand rant filled with misspellings.
(and that’s after being vetted by her “people”)
It’s all flowing together, sports, politics, entertainment.
Against this deluge of Hollowwood BS, I just boycott their movies. (not that I particularly needed to see S. Penn, G. Clooney et al films in the first place)
I think S. Spielberg is hugely talented, but I didn’t appreciate his agenda in his film Munich. Redacted, Rendition, Lions for Lambs, they can all happily lose money.
Hollowwood might wake up to that message.
pch103: Fred was a senator BEFORE he was an actor.
For his first role,he played himself.
Most if not all actors mentioned in this article are considered “A” list.
Actors are as entitled to their political opinions as the next guy,even if the next guy flips burgers or whatever.
What bothers most “Next guys” is we don’t get access to the same amount of media coverage when we voice our opinion.