A-listers, the Beverly Hills Hotel and the Sultan of Brunei
If you're partial to a bit of Hollywood scandal then the situation that has unfolded between numerous Tinsel Town stars, one of the most iconic addresses in Los Angeles, and the strict religious laws currently in place for the people of Brunei is a classic example. Whichever way their cookie crumbles, everyone has something to say on the matter.
For those oblivious to the events that have dominated U.S. entertainment press for the last week or so, allow us to shed some light. The Beverly Hills Hotel- a symbol of movie opulence, the site of inumerable Oscar parties and a film star in its own right- has come under fire as a result of its connections to the Sultan of Brunei, whose adoption of strict domestic policies banning the likes of homosexuality and abortion has caused outrage. Celebrities arrived in droves to protest the address, and the Beverly Hills Council has issued an ultimatum that either the 'sharia' stance should be denounced or the hotel sold on to break the ties.
Unfortunately, management's response wasn't amazing- when asked if they believed in ideologies that subjugate women and oppress civil and human rights (or something along those lines) they responded by saying they didn't have an opinion. Cue ravenous headlines across the media, marketing and public relations trade press. Criticisms abound, unsurprisingly the A-listers involved in the picketing and boycotting have also fallen foul of the news, with acusations of hypocracy and bandwagon jumping coming in right, left and indeed centre.
There's no denying that agendas, morals, public perception and status are all involved in a particularly uneasy relationship. The number of celebrities to come unstuck as a result of double standards has resulted in a wholesale scepticism whenever they get involved in a cause. The surprisingly astute and poignant puppet-comedy, Team America: World Police, makes this point well with the Film Actors Guild (AKA F.A.G.) being duped into supporting then-North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, simply because it gives them something to make publicity videos about. Yet there can be no doubt that an Outright American Institution such as the Beverly Hills Hotel probably shouldn't get into bed with a chap whose the Land of the Free in antithesis.
In the past Hollywood has shown its potential as a tool of protest and a catalyst for change. Of course when making this point we probably shouldn't talk about subjects such as minority representation, propagandist drama and the perpetuation of stereotypes. But we can reference the House of Un-American Activities and McCarthy-era witch hunts, the objectionist stance many actors and directors took towards those acts of persecution, and the resulting exodus of talent- many of whom were acused of being communists- which, if nothing else, showed a terrified nation that it was beginning to distrust many of its most prized assets. And as a result of those emigre, many works were made outside the U.S. studio system that would help reveal glaring wholes in the 'red under your bed' rhetoric.
So what's our point- clearly a bunch of celluloid, TV and digital personalities deciding not to do lunch at a timeless upmarket spot isn't the same as standing firm against an institutionalised prejudice that goes to the heart of your nation's administration. Nor is it equatible to leaving your homeland for fear of reprisals and imprisonment on the grounds of (often fabricated acusations of) political beliefs that do not fall in with the party line. Nevertheless, the point is that although there's plenty of fun to poke at and disgust to vent towards a culture in which the frequently-recognised look to trending movements in order to be further recognised, surely the fundamental fact remains that their overal end goal is valid, even if the motivation can be called into question. After all, whilst one hotel being taken out of the hands of an oppressive leader will do little to change anything, if this policy was adopted on a wider basis, and the idea took off, it could potentially increase the scope for improving the world, and even if that rather nice and sickeningly idealistic notion doesn't prove true, it's unlikely to do anyone any harm.
Image (C) Alan Light
