22 October 2011—Close Reading

Occupy Wall Street and Hollywood


In his article, Occupy Wall Street and Hollywood, Frank Bruni shows the inherent hypocrisy of celebrity involvement in Occupy Wall Street, and the detrimental affect it could have on the integrity of the movement.

Bruni asserts that celebrities are not members of the 99%. He uses sarcasm, invective, and details to separate figures such as Roseanne Barr, Russell Simmons, Kanye West, and Susan Sarandon from the protestors. Of Barr, Bruni says, "Such a subtle creature, she, and so oppressed to boot! Back in the 1990s, for the final seasons of her sitcom “Roseanne,” she made at least $20 million a year." Highly-paid supporters only "confuses the identity of [the] protest movement" made up of those feeling that there's too great a difference in income in the first place.

Celebrities' involvement in OWS is hypocritical in that they primarily make money for Wall-Street-like executives. Bruni again sensationalizes this, using details and harsh diction. He describes the amount of money made with "oodles" and executives as "lavishly compensated." Even the pure intentions of celebrities are shown to be polluted in some way. Work for celebrities includes advertising. Bruni disparagingly refers to celebrities as "pitchmen" and "pitchwomen," not performers. He qualifies actor Alec Baldwin's claim to give away his earnings from bank commercials with the fact that "he’s still promoting the company, and there remain other facets of his work and life that render him, like other stars, a very odd fit for a movement concerned with the sway of big companies and the distribution of wealth." Baldwin's boss made almost $35 in 2010.

Bruni argues that among the "mixed signals in the celebrity assist to Occupy Wall Street," is the fact that celebrities act greedily themselves. Though "many donate generously to charity" there are cases of "accepted payments in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to show up and even perform at the private parties of superrich despots." He conveys his idea that the actions and lives of celebrities do not fit in with the movement; the movement needs its foundation to remain solid and purposeful, and the addition of celebrity only trivializes the message.