The Oscars and the American presidential election primaries both show a preference for Clooney, a glib Democrat and supporter of Hillary, to the detriment of environmentalist DiCaprio.
If we really get to be reincarnated, I would prefer to come back as George Clooney rather than Leonardo DiCaprio. And if I could award an Oscar to someone, I would give it to the “Hail, Caesar!” actor for all of his work on behalf of the Democrats, work for which Clooney has yet to receive a statuette for best supporting actor. This is typical of this big idiot’s informal style, a man whose classic elegance ensures that a hipster beard looks fashionable.
My preference has nothing to do with artistic merit. It is no more relevant to art form than when handsome George wears a Roman-style miniskirt in the latest Coen Brothers film. It is rather that I have a weakness for the “liberal” ideological approach (in the American sense of the word) of the 50-something, while I am less fired up by the idea of the 40-something’s unrestrained floundering in green issues, such as those at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference. You are going to say that it is a generational thing, and that it is normal that I feel more in sync with the baby boomers’ younger brother, who considers Twitter a hysterical waste of time, than with the hippies’ son, icon of a disenfranchised Generation X, which is suffering alongside poor Gaia, our Mother Earth. In fact, it is especially due to the actor’s capacity for cool self-deprecation, as he doesn’t take himself too seriously. Meanwhile I am less interested in a sulky infant’s Adonis-like transformation.
In particular, Clooney continues to tell us something about Hollywood passion. Since the boredom that led to McCarthyism, the dream factory has always been made of Democratic fiber. You can grumble that Democrats and Republicans are peas in a pod, but evidently there are marked differences between the asses and the elephants in terms of morals and anti-racism as well as societal and international relations… especially in California.
Dearest George was a strong supporter of Obama. He was the leader of an army of box office-breaking majorettes. Let’s remember the appearance of Brad and Angelina or Eva Longoria. DiCaprio was also a minor donor to Obama. George and Leonardo are an identical match when it comes to talking about the climate or illegal fishing, a bit like when François Hollande took advantage of the aura generated by environmental campaigner Nicolas Hulot.
Today Clooney is drumming up support for Hillary Clinton but abstains from criticizing Bernie Sanders, whom he would join without difficulty in the unlikely case the radical candidate managed to kick the first lady off course in his quest to become leader in chief of the free world.
In Hillary’s camp, George is the leader of a richly endowed Club Med, where you can run into actresses Meryl Streep and Scarlett Johansson, singers Beyoncé and Jennifer Lopez, rappers Snoop Dogg and Pharrell Williams and basketball player Magic Johnson, not to mention philanthropist Warren Buffet or his aged comrade-in-arms Hugh Hefner, Playboy founder.
In the Sanders camp next door, the ranks are sparser. We can only make out leftist actors Mark Ruffalo and Susan Sarandon. But rest assured that the connection will be made even if hopes are dashed, and if that happens, Clooney will be a rallying point.
In France, since Montand and his conversion from southern Leninism to economic liberalism in the 1980s, showbiz is less thunderous even if its offerings are generally more explicit. But even the toughest critics can be won over by drastic change. At any rate, I would love to know what Pierre Arditi or Guy Bedos thinks of Hollande’s surrealist back-pedaling on labor laws.
Let’s say that unlike the progressive battalions who recruited Jack Lang, “French Artist of the Year” in 2016, few would make as little difference as Gerard Depardieu did making out with a plate of Poutine while confessing how much he misses Castro or a detumescent Johnny Halliday singing indifferently for Sarkozy or for Charlie.
The change from mistrust to indifference is taking its time. Jamal and Omar Sy are falling back on their inner city origins, which makes us ignore what they have to say.
It must be added that the newlywed Clooney has widened the field of his influence. The Kentucky native was very domestically oriented, and so he has made himself international through an alliance. His wife, the 38-year-old Amal, a practicing lawyer in London, increases his potential appeal. Clooney is involved with Darfur and Haiti. She defends Assange and WikiLeaks, or the Ukrainian protester Timochenko. Together, they praise Merkel for Germany’s welcoming of refugees, and they look like an egalitarian couple on a diplomatic posting. This Lebanese Druze has opened up the Middle East to a guy with Irish origins.
I would not hate it if George dared one last step and took his passion for politics further. Once he was in the White House, he could always throw Leo in the deep end as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
About this publication
Circulation: 134,800 (2006)
Owner: 39% of shares in the paper are owned by Edouard de Rothschild. A staff consortium holds an 18.4% stake, and the remaining shares are owned by Pathe, the investment group 3i and friends of the paper.
Launched in 1973 by Jean-Paul Sartre and a group of like-minded left-wing intellectuals, Liberation was aimed at the “1968 generation” – those who felt frustrated by the slow pace of social change in France and wanted a paper with an alternative outlook. What started off as a radical chic publication moved closer to the mainstream from the 1980s onwards, and by January 2005, when the banker Edouard de Rothschild became the main shareholder and invested 20m euros (£13m) in the title, the process of counter-revolution seemed complete. A restructuring plan proposed by Rothschild gave rise to protracted and acrimonious battles with staff, and many of Liberation’s most respected journalists left the paper.