The night was a "stellar affair" with celebrities decked out in their finest clothing and jewelry. Yes, Hollywood was all smiles and waves on this particular evening.
But wait. I'm not talking about the Golden Globe red carpet show. I'm talking about the "Tsunami Aid: Concert of Hope" program featured on NBC at 8 p.m. Saturday.
The star-studded affair was supposed to be simply dazzling with top-of-the-list celebrities such as Quentin Tarantino, Danny DeVito and Tim Robbins answering the phones. The night also would have been incomplete without the less-than-spectacular musical performances Madonna, Lenny Kravitz and Annie Lennox presented.
I spent some time watching this "concert," and to be honest, I wasn't entirely impressed. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I wasn't exactly moved by the apathetic smiles and "performances." Furthermore, some of the celebrities seemed to be vaguely aware of the fact people were calling in to talk to their favorite celebrities rather than to donate money. Quentin Tarantino spent more time violently waving at cameras than actually taking donations. Jay Leno mentioned at some point in the evening that this was a once-in-a-lifetime chance, alluding to the opportunity of speaking to a celebrity on the phone instead of actually making a difference in someone's life.
The so-called musical performances (I use this term loosely) were no better. A good chunk of the performers looked tired and bored as they played their instruments and sang weakly into a microphone. Lenny Kravitz looked as though he was going to fall over throughout his performance. The rest of the musicians featured were just as unimpressive.
Madonna's rendition of John Lennon's "Imagine," also left something to be desired. As a side note, I'd really like to ask: What is the obsession with this song whenever something bad happens in the world? Don't get me wrong; "Imagine" is a lovely song. Or I should say it was a lovely song before the radio decided to trivialize the meaning of it by over playing it relentlessly, thus making it one of the least tolerable songs in music history. But seriously, when did "Imagine" become the "Macarena" of world disaster?
However, no matter how insincere this concert may have appeared to be, it still achieved some good. The use of celebrities did in fact increase the amount of donation and awareness focused on the tsunami relief effort. There is nothing bad to be said about that. The tsunami is an immense tragedy that has somehow managed to unite the world on at least one issue. I'm not questioning that. However, I do question the motives of those who decided to donate during the concert. Was it really to give help where it was needed, or was it because the prospect of speaking to a celebrity on live television was terribly attractive?
Giving money to tsunami relief has generally become extremely trendy in recent weeks. And how could it not be with slews of celebrities decorating the words "tsunami tragedy relief" on a TV screen? There is something magical about whatever a celebrity touches and the American public is attracted to this romantic feeling. This is hardly something the public can be blamed for. The abstract concepts behind these celebrities are constantly being force-fed to us, and yet at the same time we enjoy what we are given. We are paradoxically willingly forced into emulating these iconographic figures who only differ from the "normal" population concerning their bank accounts and their paparazzi followers. Thus, whatever celebrities do becomes golden in our books. So why not manipulate celebrity status to bring tragedy closer to the population?
The fact of the matter is that the tsunami is not the only tragedy going on in the world now. In a recent article from the New York Post, it was reported that many other charities in New York dedicated to both national and international causes have lost a ridiculous amount of funding in recent weeks since the celebrity stardom of the tsunami has hit airwaves across the country.
The article hinted that the cause of these losses might be tied to the idea that donating money to tsunami relief efforts is far more fashionable than other charities. While these charities are of equal worth to the tsunami charity, they are not featured on the front page, nor do they have a show of celebrities asking them to donate money to the cause.
For example, the article quoted Janet Harris of the International Rescue Committee saying that 1,000 people die every day in the Congo. This is a situation equally as tragic as the tsunami. However, the Congo crisis is not nearly as widely advertised as the tsunami. Nor is it as heavily decorated with celebrity status. Because of this, there has been some speculation as to whether it is the tragedy or the celebrity that is touching people's lives.
How does a member of the American population weigh the gravity and importance of a single tragedy over another? Is it truly the number of lives lost, or is it the level of celebrity status that the tragedy achieves?
Kristin Manganello is a Rutgers College junior English major. Her column, Media, Society and You runs alternating Thursdays.
Be the first to comment on this article!