George Clooney

The last two movies involving George Clooney were politically charged films that carried undeniable messages that took aim at the wayward direction the American govt., namely the Bush administration, has been leading the American people. In "Good Night, and Good Luck", Clooney cleverly correlates the inability , and subsequent persecution, of Americans accused of Communism to face their accusers in the 1950's to the "un-Patriotic" contempt smeared upon Americans who questioned the motives and objectives of the Bush administration before the war in Iraq was initiated; I think the manner by which both groups of people were deemed "traitors" by the governing body should not be forgotten so shortly. In a recent interview, Clooney remarked,"The whole world has turned much more political in the past four or five years. But I think it’s hard to say, with so many American kids being shot at, that those of us who spoke out weren’t fairly right about the war. I wasn’t going to listen to the leader of my country say, “You’re either with us or with the enemy.” Not just “You’re with us or against us,” but literally “with us or engaging in acts of treason.” You can’t call people traitors because they believe in dissent. That’s what this country was based on."
Along with Stephan Gaghan, Clooney addresses the long-standing issue of America's dependence upon Middle Eastern oil in "Syriana". When asked if the Iraqi war is based on this dependence, Clooney responded," Of course I do. If it wasn’t about oil, getting Saddam Hussein out, who was a really evil dictator, would stand well behind getting Robert Mugabe out. If it was about getting a dictator out, you know Pinochet was no sweetheart, either. Of course it’s about oil. This isn’t a problem of the last five years started by the Bush administration. It’s 60 years of flawed policy in the Middle East. I don’t think there’s a person out there from the Middle East to America that would disagree with that. So the question then becomes, What do we do? And I don’t think we—Hollywood—should supply those answers. Perhaps when we are at our best in Hollywood is when we raise questions. And when we are not at our best is when we try to supply all the answers."
I think everyone knows that Clooney is pretty liberal and outspoken against what he believes are grave injustices perpetuated by this current presidency. I don't want to go as far as to say that I wholeheartedly concur with everything he brings to the table but I would be closed-minded if I don't find the objections presented in these two movies to be valid, if not pretty accurate. I'm always leery of celebrities taking to the political and social arena for many reasons. However, there are a few who do so with a convicting voice of influence possessing the potential of catalyzing change and starting conversations that, otherwise, would be non-existent. The article intros the interview with this assessment of Clooney: "No one this side of Bono has so deftly put his celebrity at the service of his politics. No one that side of Mel Gibson has leveraged his stardom to make risky projects that would otherwise sit on the shelf." What more can you say about the guy? Not only does he make great films but he actually stands for a few things worth championing.