Why These 2020 People?
“Blanchett stars ”
“Cate Blanchett takes limelight ”
“Cate Blanchett brings newborn son ”
“Mother and child were the focus of attention “
Forgive us our scepticism. We are in favour of the nation, having rethought its past, rethinking its present and its future.
But why these people at the 2020 Summit? In some cases the answer is obvious, but we wonder why some of these “Type A Personalities” (according to ABC Radio) were selected? Are they, as has been claimed in the media, really Australia’s 1000 “best and brightest”? Do you really have to be a Type A Personality to make a meaningful contribution to the future direction of Australia?
In particular, why Cate Blanchett and Hugh Jackman? What really are their credentials other than they are successful at pretending? Particularly when, in our own opinion, Blanchett, while attractive to many in an unconventional kind of way, is only a mediocre actor, an “indicator” as it is known in the trade – an opinion we have held since she appeared in Heartland in ’94.
What, apart from her ability to pretend and her now self-generating famosity, makes her especially suited to adjudicate on the future direction Australia ought to take? What, for example, puts her in the same intellectual league as Club Troppo’s Nicholas Gruen? And even more so for Huge Ackman, whose greatest claim to glory surely is his demonstrated ability to survive the brutality of Hollywood with his reputation for pretending to be a wolf enhanced and his marriage intact? And why these people – and others – who, after all, have spent the majority of their recent years living anywhere but Australia?
There are any number of Australians who think intelligently, deeply and creatively about their country but who would never have been considered. While we know that there are many very worthy people in Canberra this weekend, very passionate, very thoughtful, very inspiring people, we suspect that some participants are a cheap and easy option to provide a cosmetic veneer – the usual suspects, the obvious, the safe, the safely mediocre and the glamorous. Miss Saigon instead of Rigoletto.
We suspect that the changes that need to be made will not come from linear thought with predictable outcomes but rather by sudden leaps of intuition and inspiration. A two-day self-congratulatory “I made the A-List” talkathon is unlikely to produce such a result.
[tags]Cate Blanchett, Cate, Blanchett, Hugh Jackman, 2020, 2020 Summit, Australia, Rudd, Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister, Priminster, talk fest, talkathon, future, culture, society, Canberra, acting, Hollywood, star, Type A, Type A personality, Nicholas Gruen, Club Troppo, Heartland, usual suspects, mediocre, glamour, Miss Saigon, Rigoletto, intellect, best and brightest, A-List, intuition, inspiration, expat, expatriates, values, qualities, morals, ethics, cost, principles, standards[/tags]
Posted: 19 April, 2008 in Aussie Citizenship, Australian Politics, Australian Values, Culture.
Comments
Comment from roger migently
Posted: 20 April, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Well, yes, in previous lives I have been an actor, a singer and a dancer. Also a director. Also a writer. I apologise for suggesting that actors don’t count. Writers need them. Many of them are wonderful. Many are not. And I am in awe of Hugh Jackman’s extraordinary talent and energy as an actor, singer and dancer. The point is, first that the ability to make words sound meaningful to others does not make those words yours; the ideas you express are not your ideas. It would be like making Tom Cruise the head of the CIA because he can pretend to be a spy. Or nominating Chuck Norris as the US Secretary of Defense, as Huckabee did. Or making Ronald Reagan President of the USA. They’re not bad people, they’re just not the people who created the ideas. Secondly, if Cate and Hugh are to have some influence on our country’s future, I want to know what their credentials are for critiquing civil society, what philosophical depth they have, and why theirs is supposed to be more significant than any number of creative people I know who do actually think about those things. Or are their credentials merely the fact that they are successful (whatever that means) and famous?
Comment from Darla
Posted: 21 April, 2008 at 2:23 am
You apparently don’t know jack about Jackman. He is so much more than an actor! While you are in awe of his talents that you mentioned (and I totally agree), you wouldn’t question his presence if you knew more.
I don’t know everything about mr Jackman – but he, more than any self-serving politician, very much deserves a place at the summit to discuss Australia’s future regarding the arts. He has brought so much back to Australia (in terms of projects/jobs/dollars) in the last 18 months… he not only talks the talk, he walks the walk!
Comment from roger migently
Posted: 21 April, 2008 at 8:54 am
You are right, Darla. I know very little about Mr Jackman apart from his exploits which are reported in the media. I know some of his biography, most of which covers his considerable acting prowess and his numerous awards. I am aware that he has set up a production company with Deborra-Lee and John Palermo. I know he was at least at one time a christian, although perhaps he now generalises to “a greater source”. I understand he supports Manly and can benchpress 142kg.
You say “you wouldn’t question his presence if you knew more”. So please tell me the more that will change my mind. I love to learn and I readily admit it when I am wrong.
Hugh has had ups and downs and challenges in his life. He has said, “I’ve always felt that if you back down from a fear, the ghost of that fear never goes away. It diminishes people. So I’ve always said ‘yes’ to the thing I’m most scared about. The fear of letting myself down — of saying ‘no’ to something that I was afraid of and then sitting in my room later going, ‘I wish I’d had the guts to say this or that’ — that galvanizes me more than anything”, which I heartily agree with. But many, many other people have had ups and downs and challenges.
His kids play, or played, with Rupert’s youngest kids when they’re in New York. Does that make a difference?
He’s started a film production company in Australia. That takes guts. And there are plenty of other people not at the Summit have had the guts to start challenging businesses.
It’s not that he’s not a good bloke. I’m quite certain that I would think he was one of the nicest, most inspiring people I had ever met. If I met him.
It’s not that he doesn’t have the credentials, necessarily. It’s that apart from being a well-connected and busy celebrity who could add show-biz razzle-dazzle to what might otherwise have been perceived as a dull talkfest, his attendance remains unexplained for me.
———-
On second thought, and on the other hand, I am all in favour of the future of Australia being considered by truly creative people, particularly writers and artists, because they are the shamans of our time, the see-ers who can tell us both what truly is and what is to come, who can bring back from the future the cures for present ills. It is these people who always provide the breakthroughs in thought and imagination that are needed, rather than those who retail, and renovate, old irrelevant cultural myths.
P.S. Do you know Hugh? Can you introduce me?
Comment from Sonetto
Posted: 19 April, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Why indeed Hugh Jackman and Cate Blanchett? They are tellers of stories, they reflect the human condition either in real life or in imagination. Are you an actor or singer or dancer? Then you would understand the ability and effort that must be put into projects like “Oklahoma,” in which Hugh Jackman sang, acted and even danced so marvelously. Cate Blanchett I’m less familiar with, but her skills as an actress were undoubtedly honed over years of apprenticeship to the point where she was ready to reach millions of people around the globe with her portrayals. I have no love at all for actors who presume, along with their stardom, to have some wisdom regarding politics. One could also make an argument that all of us are achievers in some field or other, yet not all can be recognized. My father was a Pulitzer Prize winner, in the U.S. of course, at age 45, but he did not gain the writing skills and a sense of justice all at once. No one does anything overnight. I have said, as a result of my years, I do not want a psychologist when what I need is a policemen, nor do I want a writer when what I need is a fireman. Likewise, I do not want a composer when what the situation called for is an actor. There is a place in the for accomplished people, not the least nor the most of them, actors, because they help tell the story of mankind for better and for worse, they give voice to the words, the stories, the adventures of others. Finally, what is Shakespeare if all that remains are his words on pieces of paper? Whatever the past or present reputations of actors aside from their crafts they are our troubadours, our wandering troupes, even our little theater groups who bring to life that which we are and do as human beings, and help us look at ourselves and discover important things about ourselves. Wolverine, no! Oklahoma and The Prestige, yes!