George Clooney's Esquire blunder

The actor's made some ungracious remarks in a recent magazine interview

John Walsh
Thursday 05 December 2013 11:22 GMT
Comments
(Getty Images)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Has George Clooney scored a spectacular own goal? The Hollywood heart-throb complains in the current Esquire about the pros and cons of renown – he hasn’t been able to walk in Central Park for 15 years, poor baby – and says the stars of Hollywood’s golden age would have been unequipped to deal with modern pressures.

Out of nowhere, he adds: “The truth of the matter is, if you’re going to do a movie for $15m, then almost invariably it means it’s a shtty movie.” Apart from the implied slap in the face to those Ocean’s 11 films, for which he surely received close to $15m, his ungracious remark ignores some basic tenets of Old Hollywood: that the true star was always bigger than the picture; that, no matter how trite the plot, audiences went to see the star anyway, and that’s what made him/her worth $15m to the studios. The old Hollywood stars knew that, pocketed the dough and dazzled for the cameras. And they didn’t whinge about their, you know, vastly unwelcome schlock-money.

We the sophisticated Neanderthals

According to my dictionary, “Neanderthal” means “a type of man widely distributed in paleolithic Europe, with retreating forehead and massive brow-ridges” who lived in a cave, ate flesh, hunted all day and treated womenfolk with nuance-free directness. They’ve become a byword in uncivilised behaviour patterns, cognate with modern students or darts players. But a study in the Canadian Journal of Archaeology reports that, contrary to popular myth, Neanderthals were a sophisticated, house-proud people. They cut up food in a different place from the place they slept in. They disposed of bones outside the cave mouth, as though anticipating a wheelie-bin. They kept sharp objects away from naked feet, though years would pass before anyone invented the knife block. They organised their living space with purpose and focus, like modern interior decorators dealing in feng shui. They gathered around the fire every night to communicate, watching the flames as though inspecting a rudimentary DVD. I like this spick-and-span version of our supposedly gross ancestors. It’s interesting to discover that, in the hierarchy of human needs, after food, drink, shelter and companionship there comes a triple obsession with Tidying Up, Putting Things Away and Getting the Dyson Out.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in