Mitt Romney has spent $9m on advertising. Charlize Theron's Golden Globes outfit cost $8m. It will only get more difficult to differentiate between the Oscars and the Republican primaries as both reach panic stations
It's always nice to keep abreast of what's going on in the UK, even though you lot are a bunch of European socialists. So there has been a bit of fuss about value for money in this country of late? Something about the chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland? About him being due, and eventually rejecting, what you adorable communists insist on describing as a "£1m bonus" – £963,000, to be precise, but that's just so you to exaggerate – of taxpayers' money. Oh, you guys! I come from the country where last week a presidential candidate proposed making the moon America's 51st state at an estimated cost of $150bn – and he was cheered. I say, with my thumbs in my armpits and my chest puffed with pride, when we Americans put our minds to it, we can chuck away our own money like no one on earth. That should be our national motto.
Speaking of burning vast amounts of cash, as it's February it behoves me to discuss a certain contest that is currently running its tired course in America. It's a very important contest, according to those involved, one that can change lives. It has long since been accepted by everyone, except those who win, that this race is more about personality than capability, about not saying the wrong thing, and it's often more about the candidate's lifetime career as opposed to their current skills.
It's just a beauty contest, of course, with the candidates forced to engage in the most ridiculous soap operatics, feeding platitudinous quotes into the maw of the increasingly hysterical press. It is not just that the outcome is entirely dictated by money but that the amounts of money lavished on the event have already reached such ridiculous heights this year that next time the only person with the wherewithal to compete, never mind win, will be the son of the despot of a small but oil-rich country. I speak, of course, of the Oscars.
The Oscars and the presidential campaign, the presidential campaign and the Oscars: "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." As handy as a George Orwell reference is, it's hard to decide here who are the pigs and who the farmers.
This election will be retrospectively viewed as some kind of financial Rubicon that has either been irretrievably crossed or will result in such a backlash that future elections can only be conducted by smoke signals. This is the Super PAC election, so much so that Stephen Colbert briefly ran for president of the United States of South Carolina, to satirise the rise of the Super PACs – political action committees – which have blistered up since the Supreme Court ruling in 2010, allowing unlimited and anonymous campaign contributions. According to opensecrets.org, as of 31 January, "302 groups organised as Super PACs have reported total receipts of $33,954,808 and total independent expenditures of $44,930,615." According to advertising agencies, Mitt Romney and his supporters have spent $9m on advertising alone. In Florida.
Which isn't even enough to win a movie accolade. New York magazine recently priced the outfit Charlize Theron wore to the Golden Globes, and concluded it came to $8m. She lost, incidentally. This month it will get only more difficult to differentiate between the Oscars and the Republican primaries as both reach panic stations.
So to help tell apart your Mitt Romneys from your Midnight in Paris, your Rick Santorums from your Meryl Streeps, just follow this handy quiz:
Are some of the key figures just patronising minority groups or actually being racist?
(a) Well, it's a thin line between the two but seeing as The Help, AKA Driving Miss Daisy 2, was at least well-intended, let's go for condescending.
(b) Let's see, the frequent linking of African-Americans to welfare payments, the scaremongering about immigration, "food stamp president": racist for the win!
Is a shadowy, menacing puppet master actually behind this whole charade?
(a) Yes.
(b) Yes.
Is this shadowy, menacing puppet master Harvey Weinstein?
(a) Yes.
(b) Well, maybe, but I was thinking of Karl Rove, and maybe also the Koch brothers. But never underestimate Harvey!
Are newspapers clearing their pages to focus on the fashion worn by the key women involved?
(a) Yes.
(b) Don't be ridiculous – there are no "key women" here! But there will be extensive coverage of the first wives' fashion, yes.
Will the losers make a truckload of money afterwards from Rupert Murdoch?
(a) No.
(b) You betcha!
Mostly As: You are watching the Oscars!
Mostly Bs: You are watching the election!
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/31/running-for-president-oscar-money
No comments:
Post a Comment