ACTORS on TV and the big screen have earned our admiration for turning their celebrity and fame into “weapons of mass inspiration,” signing on as spokespersons for an organization or for a cause. Oftentimes, they do this for no consideration other than giving life to their own beliefs and commitment, or, if we must be cynical about it, expanding their resumés beyond the usual filmography or videography.
Nicole Kidman, an Oscar-winning actor who combines both artistic merit and box-office appeal, was in the news recently when she appeared on Washington, D.C.’s Capitol Hill to address a congressional hearing on violence against women. Her presence at the hearing, said news reports, “created excitement, disappointment and raised some eyebrows.”
Kidman had been invited to a hearing of the House foreign affairs subcommittee on international organizations, human rights and oversight. The committee has been hearing testimony as they debate the International Violence against Women Act, a companion piece to the US law against Violence against Women, which would penalize foreign governments where women’s rights are not respected.
An Australian wire report says the legislation has stalled in the past, but that the current sponsor, Democratic Rep. Bill Delahunt, said he and others planned to reintroduce it soon. Apparently, Kidman’s star power was mobilized to add wattage to the deliberations on the bill, which would affect America’s relations with some key allies.
* * *
“I AM here just to be a voice,” Kidman told the panel of men and women members of the US Congress. “I rely on the people I’ve met to make the case.”
Kidman, speaking as a goodwill ambassador for Unifem, the United Nations Development Fund for Women, “told stories about the violence suffered by women in different parts of the world, including a Pakistani woman scarred for life when her husband threw acid in her face.”
“These champions need and deserve our support,” Kidman said. The US government, she added, could help “not with a box of band aids but with a comprehensive, well-funded approach that acknowledges that women’s rights are human rights.”
Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher “turned the spotlight back on Kidman and Hollywood, asking if the film industry had ‘played a bad role’ in the way women are treated.”
“Probably” was Kidman’s reply, though she quickly added, “I can’t be responsible for all of Hollywood, but I can certainly be responsible for my own career.”
Which brings us to the point of why I’m telling this story about Nicole Kidman on Capitol Hill.
* * *
ROHRABACHER had a valid point. Before celebrity spokespersons and star endorsers-for-a-cause speak on issues close to their hearts or those of their sponsors, they should start looking at how they themselves, in their personal lives and show business careers, “live out the questions.”
The women’s movement has a saying: “The personal is political.” To be authentic, one’s embrace of an ideology, issue or passion should reverberate in both the private spaces of one’s life as well as in the public arena where one makes a living.
You cannot be a credible ambassador against violence against women if in your personal life you tolerate violence against your person or against other women. Or if, as a performer, you accept roles in movies or TV shows that demean women, or do violence to women’s images. Which is not to say, either, that you shouldn’t appear in productions that depict violence against women or violence in general. Context is all. If the scenes of violence serve to illustrate the phenomenon, or paint a horrific picture of the pain and trauma it causes, then it just might send a powerful message about this social evil.
Actors, performers, celebrities already have a powerful platform on which to mount their own thoughts and feelings about political, environmental and social issues, as well as a wide array of advocacies. And actors as prominent, and thus as powerful, as Kidman already enjoy enough clout in the industry to choose their roles, produce their own movies or shows, or influence the creative community to create alternative images of women, less exploitative, more empowering, more positive and uplifting.
* * *
THIS being election season, a lot of show business personalities have already announced their intention to run for public office. Doubtless they’re banking on the power of celebrity— name and face recognition, instant rapport with the public, identification with on-screen persona—to prevail over rivals who have yet to introduce themselves to voters.
Interviews with these candidates-to-be on their reasons for running invariably produce replies like their desire “to serve” or else to “unite the people of (name the locality)” or else “to help a greater number of people.” Celebrity involvement in the recent disasters of “Ondoy” and “Pepeng” seems to have opened the floodgates to individuals with links to show business. Some even go so far as to explain that their forays into urban and rural poor areas have “opened their eyes” to the reality of poverty and hunger in this country.
Don’t get me wrong. Many of them are doubtless sincere in their desire to help, and see public office as simply an extension of their public role and identity. And some may even be qualified for the positions they aspire for.
But as Nicole Kidman’s simple answer indicates: Before seeking a broader platform to ventilate one’s advocacies, one should be “responsible for my own career.” And that’s a responsibility owed not just to one’s self or progress in the business, but to the audience as well as the greater public. That is an actor’s primary duty.
