SARAH VINE
You need a certain amount of chutzpah to turn up at a protest against the sexual objectification of women in a gown slashed to the waist. But Kate Beckinsale seemed unperturbed by her rather risque choice at Sunday night’s starstudded Golden Globes ceremony.
As did Catherine Zeta-Jones, whose tulle fishtail number was struggling to contain her own very ample globes, and Nicole Kidman, who looked as though the top of her dress had been ravaged by moths.
They — like countless other famous faces — were taking part in Hollywood’s latest attempt to atone for the sins of disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein: hashtag MeToo’s even more humourless cousin, the Time’s up campaign.
Endorsed by Hollywood’s top female talent and launched last week with a fullpage advert in the New York Times, the Time’s up campaign is supported by a catalogue of A-listers including Emma Watson, Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep and Natalie Portman to draw attention to and stamp out sexual harassment.
Their first course of action? To urge fellow A-listers to wear black to this year’s awards as a gesture of ‘solidarity’ towards victims.
Eat your heart out, Rosa Parks. or maybe not. Still, what they lacked in credibility they certainly made up for in enthusiasm. one by one, they pouted and preened their way down the red carpet in a selection of tenebrous numbers, not a single person daring to defy the self-appointed moral arbiters of post-Harvey Hollywood.
NEvER mind the fact that this time last year they were all more than happy to mingle with Weinstein, to be seen at his parties and drink his champagne. This was Hollywood in sackcloth and ashes mode — and, my, what a stomachchurning spectacle it proved.
From the token addition of eight ‘normal people’ to the guest list (activists for gender and racial justice who found themselves mobbed by A-listers desperate to be photographed with them) to the sycophantic reception to oprah Winfrey’s acceptance speech (which she rather unashamedly turned into the unofficial launch of her bid to become the next Democratic Presidential candidate), it was a night of empty gestures and even emptier intentions. Don’t get me wrong: I’m all in favour of helping victims of abuse rebuild their lives; and I admire the desire of these women to put their fame — and fortune (they have raised $13 million) to good use.
But I can’t help feeling that a big part of this is also about Hollywood helping itself. About assuaging its own feelings of guilt at having enabled, through inaction, Weinstein’s abominable behaviour. About ambitious individuals having put their own interests before those of others less powerful or influential.
For, let’s face it, many of those in the limelight on Sunday night willingly danced attendance at the court of King Harvey, even when they knew full well the kind of tricks he was getting up to.
Now that he is exposed, they are naturally anxious to distance themselves from the man himself, but also expunge their own part in the drama. After all, how many of these women whose brows are now so furrowed (Botox permitting), whose expressions of concern now echo around the world, were — and remain — part of a machine that has always run roughshod over the dreams of the little people?
How many turned a blind eye
to what was happening to their rivals and fellow actresses?
What stopped them, back then, using their fame to fight injustice? After all, nothing has really changed in the months since the Weinstein revelations emerged — save for the fact that the whole stinking mess has finally been exposed.
There are exceptions, of course. Angelina Jolie is notable for her genuine desire to roll up her sleeves and help on the front line.
But she is a rare example in a world where, increasingly, people seem to cleave to gesture politics and think it’s enough to express ‘solidarity’ to make a genuine difference.
Out in the real world, most people still know the difference between hot air and hard graft. So if Hollywood thinks this sort of vacuous virtue signalling is going to persuade anyone that, as Oprah put it, ‘a new day is on the horizon’, then they must truly take us all for fools.
You can’t eradicate decades of sexism, inequality, racism and casting couch practices just by trotting out a few frocks. That takes years of hard work, for no money and no glory. A concept that is anathema to these glittering beauties.
Talking of which, they may have been in sombre mood, but that didn’t stop them from turning up the glamour.
Solidarity is all very well, but not at the expense of the important stuff, i.e. looking better than the next woman.
Most of the outfits left very little to the imagination and cost the annual salary of most ordinary women. So business as usual, really.
Even the choice of black was no real hardship. The men would have been wearing it anyway; and as for the women, well what’s not to like? It’s easy; it’s flattering; it’s slimming.
Had the choice been brown, or perhaps a particularly unflattering shade of yellow, now that would have been a serious statement. Or walking the red carpet make-up free: that would have been even more impressive. A genuine signal of serious intent in a town where looks matter more than most.
Instead, this was the most token of token gestures.
Black: barely any sort of sacrifice at all. All designer thigh-high slits and cleavage, accessorised with goodness only knows how many millions of pounds worth of fine jewellery (emeralds were the order of the day — a symbol of compassion, apparently), not to mention several decentsized vats of fake tan.
Time’s up, they say. I’ll believe it when I see it.