By Aaron 6/12/2008

I read an interesting USA Today article this morning about John Cusack’s anti-McCain ads. This piqued my interest for a few reasons: the article’s mention of the ad in the context of Cusack’s latest flick, War, Inc, the ad itself, and the general issue of celebrities and political endorsements. This offers a great platform to discuss celebrity endorsements’ motives and implications and get at why celebrity endorsements matter.

When I first heard about War, Inc, I asked, “is this the sequel to Grosse Pointe Blank?” The article, as well as an interview I read on Joblo.com, suggested that War, Inc was much more than just another action-comedy, it was a film geared toward political import (Cusack himself called the film “radical”). I felt like I had no choice but to watch the trailer again, and it looked like a lot of fun. You can see Cusack’s humor permeating every level of the movie (he wrote some of it) and it looks like a decent action comedy. If it is a dark commentary on the Iraq war it still looks like a really good movie. But I missed the political undertones of the preview from the first viewing. This time I caught the references to an endless war, Halliburton’s involvement, and overbearing American military leaders. Now I REALLY want to see the film.

After reading the article I was very curious about the ad-spot itself although after watching it, it was pretty anti-climatic. The article said almost all of what Cusack says. It was not nearly as much fun as the one Jack Nicholson made for Hillary which was composed of clips of Jack’s old movies and a pretty funny conclusion. Just to be fair and balanced, I found this clip from Tom Hanks that he posted to MySpace (yes, Hanks has MySpace) and its pretty long, and boring with distracting cuts and monotone without any of Jack’s flair or movie clips (Hanks surely had enough iconic movies to do so). To be COMPLETELY fair McCain has received backing from action heroes Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone.

In his ad, Cusack just talks and someone does some annoying cuts that show Cusack in front of different color backgrounds (big deal). But maybe there is more to come, as most of what has been written about Cusack’s involvement with MoveOn.org has said that Cusack is going to create a SERIES of ads. It might be hard because Cusack hasn’t had as many iconic scenes as Jack has, but the boom box one from Say Anything is a good building block for the ad. At the very least watch the trailer for Say Anything - it’s REALLY good.

I’m not so foolish as to say that celebrity political endorsements do not make sense to me because they do make sense. Celebrities have fans that they think they can sway with their endorsement, which is why candidates want them, as well as for the larger issue of having famous spokespeople plugging your campaign. Other reasons why celebrities have political sway is because people look up to them – young people see celebrities as “cool” or maybe on a deeper level, as role models and (sometimes unfortunately so) people more in tune with politics, which means more votes. Plus, concert or dinner events celebrities are at raise lots of money, which is the most important aspect of modern politics that influence advertisements, speeches, and everything else. Additionally, celebrities have the power to mobilize different voting blocks. If a candidate is having trouble with a specific group, get a celebrity representative from that group to support you and you have an inroad into that community because you have captured one of their role models. Even Bill O’Reilly thinks this is a big deal! But seriously, if you want to read what normal people think there is an interesting discussion over at the BBC that covers this as well as another great article that compliments the BBC discussion.

But the more important question is why the endorsement should mean something to us, the people (there was a good article here). One thing to note is that many celebrities endorse products and that boosts sales. Is it the same in politics? Probably. But either way marketing firms and political promotion firms seem to be in agreement that celebrities are the way to go. But when the celebrities start getting into their opinions and all that bluster you have to stop and ask yourself, are they qualified to be informing your opinion? Even if, like Hanks, they rundown policies and argue one way, or use voting record, like Cusack, its still just them speaking because they can afford to. Why do we listen to them over the endorsement of say, Colin Powell or Ted Kennedy? (cool toy for seeing political endorsements) That in itself is pretty troubling. Why does no one have the thought, "celebrities can will say anything they want"? It runs through my head whenever I see them endorse some new flavored water. Does it really taste better? Why would you want flavored water anyways?

But maybe it doesn’t matter? Celebrity endorsements were overwhelming in 2004 – for John Kerry – but they didn’t really help him win. Instead we read lots of articles about why Springsteen’s fans were pissed that he went all political. In fact, recent polls show that celebrities have no impact or very little impact on increasing votes for a candidate and there are lots of celebrities whose endorsement can actually hurt a candidate!

In the end it’s all entertainment. Politicians want entertaining campaign ads (see Jack’s) and big name celebs (see Hanks’) and celebs who will help in important states (Schwarzenegger). If people love movies and music and stars – give it to them. In the commercial and digital era flooding the net with celebrity viral ads makes news (free publicity) and gets attention and conveys political messages (the ultimate goal). If Cusack is promoting War, Inc and they ask about his Obama ad, bonus! If Stallone is talking about Rocky 7 and they ask about the ad, bonus! Name recognition has become the name of the game and getting to the airwaves on the net, with a voice people know, is an important asset.

 

As usual if you have questions or comments for me you can email me at aaron.saltystix@gmail.com.

Could “Avatar” Win Best Picture?

By Brett Hogan

 

Last week, the trailer for James Cameron’s sci-fi experiment “Avatar” debuted. While initially unimpressed with the teaser, I began to wonder: Could this film win best picture? 

 

Buzz has been generating for this movie for years. Years. The technology to make this movie didn’t exist when Cameron conceived it, so he invented it. When is the last time you heard of a director spearheading the invention of anything? The casting started in 2005. Most movies these days, even epics, are done in half that time. I could go on. 

 

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that people are saying this will be the future of movies. Now, I don’t agree with the idea that CGI will become more prevalent than it already is. But I do believe that this will set the bar miles higher for sci-fi. I mean, that is what Titanic did. And that won some awards if memory serves.

 

I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, how can you even suggest that a film like this will win Best Picture when the initial trailer was nothing better than visual stimulation? Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Academy has expanded Best Picture to ten films. This doesn’t guarantee anything other than improved chances for most films on the cusp.

 

Second, after last year’s Oscars debacle, which saw the best film of the year, “The Dark Knight,” not only get shafted in awards but nominations as well, the Academy is pulling out all the stops to appease those with the loudest voices in the film industry, the fanboys. Now, the Academy probably didn’t lose anything because of that other than some viewers of the award show. Perhaps if people are again outraged with the winners or nominees, the heads of the Academy would lose their jobs. So this is all about the Academy protecting itself, which is not so outrageous.  

 

 

Third, there is an economic motive here. I’ve heard this film will cost $190 million, not counting the R&D costs associated with Cameron’s inventions or the cost of getting 3-D cameras into every theater in the country. The Academy will do everything in its power to get people into the seats and make this the next “Titanic” or “The Dark Knight.” But the Academy doesn’t have much power, besides nominating and awarding, so they will slap the “Nominated for Best Picture” moniker onto every commercial and print ad to get the people who didn’t believe the critics to relent and see this movie.

 

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, and no revolutionary film (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc.) has ever won the Best Picture category because it changed the game. Except maybe Titanic. But still, could this movie actually win? My answer is no but a nomination is certain and who knows what could happen from there. We’ll know more come February 2010.