Terence Blacker: A great day for famous do-gooders
For celebrities, highly visible charity activities are a good deal
Today is our national caring day. Across the country, people will be involved in activities – sporting, musical or just plain odd – which will raise money for charity. On the BBC, the famous will be doing their bit by playing the fool, putting on silly costumes and generally allowing the giving, good-natured side of their personalities a public outing.
Children in Need provides a variety of satisfactions. Millions of pounds are raised for the needy. There is a general, therapeutically healthy, act of giving. The BBC gets excellent ratings. The famous earn a wonderful double reward of publicity and credibility: by presenting themselves as essentially ordinary folk who care, they subtly point up their extraordinariness. In the eyes of the public and the media, they gain that special gold star of appreciation reserved for the celebrity who gives back. This connection between the famous and charity is so hard-wired into the contemporary psyche that it is easy to lose sight of how bizarre it often is.
The actor Nicolas Cage embodies the paradox of the caring celebrity better than most. This week, as a UN Goodwill Ambassador, he has been in Kenya, visiting Somali pirates in jail, with a view to highlighting the problem of piracy in the Indian ocean.
Another, more personal problem is being aired in a court in Los Angeles. A case brought by Cage against his former business manager has provided an insight into a world of mind-boggling extravagance. The actor needed to earn $30m dollars simply to sustain his lifestyle, it has been claimed. At one point, he owned 15 personal residences around the world, including castles in Britain and Bavaria, and four yachts, kept for him in different oceans. In 2007 alone, he bought 22 cars, including nine Rolls Royces. There were comparable levels of spending on jewellery, works of art, parties. Something distinctly odd is happening when a man who likes to indulge his every whim in acts of crazed self-indulgence is selected by the UN to visit the poorest countries in the world in the role of caring ambassador.
From the point of view of the celebrity, these highly visible charitable activities are a good deal. Paris Hilton is not just an airhead heiress; she cares about the poor in Guatemala. Geri Halliwell becomes more than an ex-Spice Girl when she visits Nepal and addresses its prime minister on women's rights. Nicole Kidman acquires a new level of gravitas when she is invited to become part of the UN's campaign against domestic abuse.
Perhaps, as a cultural sideshow, these things are harmless. In a fame-obsessed age, they draw attention to people and problems which would otherwise be ignored. Yet when a man with 15 homes and nine Rolls Royces is presented to the world as a moral figure, a role model, then a sort of willed stupidity is being embraced. Did none of those important, intelligent people at the UN suggest that the best way Nicolas Cage could help the needy would be quietly to donate a couple of castles to the cause?
So events like Children in Need offer a confusing moral message to young viewers. If you're a public figure, your worth is not judged by how you behave or live or spend your wealth, but on whether you make the right sympathetic noises when the cameras are running.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
Please let those for and against issues speak out. If the response is ugly, then it is at least truthful, and it will at least be there to be challenged and dealt with.
Does anyone know if this is true?
Yes, which is why I never watch it
I thought he did it for nothing, but he doesn't.
I thought they all just gave their time free.
Charities & so called not for profit organisations are sprouting up all over the place, the licence seems to be thown around like confetti. Its about time the operating costs of charities was reviewed ,certainly once they are established as any donations to the profligate ensure the genuine & well run charities donations diminish pro rata, which is a great shame as they usually seem to be the ones who benefit all in society whereas the glossy shiny new charities seem more about empire builiding & nearer to quango status than chartiable, so we can well imagine who'll be climbing on their board after the next general election.
Add to this the National Lottery becoming the London sports lottery & the loss of small lottery grants will see many voluntary organisations falling like the proverbial nine pins & with it local communties will suffer further.