Angelina Jolie and William Hague – how odd political couples can work
|
Version 0 of 1. When Angelina Jolie was awarded her damehood, the country had only just recovered from the photographs of her, Brad Pitt and William Hague arriving at the summit to end sexual violence in conflict, a very worthwhile event. A shame then that Hague looked as though he'd been taken on a daytrip by some kindly, glamorous, neighbours, who'd noticed he sat home alone all day, supping Horlicks, watching 60 Minute Makeover. ("We must help that poor man!") And why was Pitt suddenly there? Who's to say that he didn't think: "Hang on a goddamn minute – what's this handsome brute of a British foreign secretary, this fine figure of a man, doing hanging out with my Angie at these so-called summits? This limey Hague guy could be a significant sexual threat." Unlikely, but why bother with something as boring as fact, or acknowledge what could be genuine altruism, when frivolous conjecture is so much more fun? During the summit, Hague commented on how much he admired Jolie, with whom he's worked for two years to combat rape in war zones, such as Rwanda and Syria, adding that they would continue to work together. When asked about their pairing, Jolie merely said: "Whatever works." Nevertheless, ridicule abounded, with Hague openly taunted as a "starstruck" sap. (Later, David Cameron was accused of practically carrying Jolie's handbag for her.) For their part, humanitarian stars such as Jolie are routinely dismissed as narcissistic and/or delusional –moronic puppets or scheming self-publicists – whether they deserve it or not. In many ways, it's easy to understand why the Hague/Jolie "odd couple" attracts such negative attention. Seeing them together is just plain jarring – a classic case of two very different worlds colliding. I was thinking that the last time I'd seen such a discombobulating twosome was when Jack Straw showed Condoleezza Rice around Blackburn, but then someone pointed out that at least they were both politicians. By contrast, this is politics (fabled showbiz for ugly people) and actual showbiz (for actual beautiful people), merging to form an unwieldy mash-up that some might worry is the very opposite of serious, dignified or productive. In such circumstances, the point is usually made (quite correctly) that not everything needs to be viewed through the prism of celebrity. While I basically agree, I've also long piped up that, being so over-rewarded, perhaps celebrities should be forced to do more charity work, not less. More seriously, Jolie has been promoting serious issues for some time now and has generally behaved with good grace and a lack of pomposity. She also seems fully aware that her chief contribution is to garner publicity for unfashionable causes, attracting the kind of global attention that Hague, a mere politician with the face of a sprouting spud, couldn't hope to get on his own. In her mission, Jolie appears to be succeeding mightily (as, in fairness, does Hague), so what's the problem? Those who accuse Jolie of "posing' or "acting" perhaps need to remember she recently endured a double mastectomy as a protective measure against breast cancer, which would surely concentrate the mind. Moreover, Jolie has now "done" celebrity twice – first as daughter of her actor father, Jon Voight, and then herself. Is it so impossible to believe that she's genuinely sick of it and needs her fame to mean something this time around? Indeed, while I've done my own fair share of mocking over-earnest or self-serving "charidee" celebrities, there have been also been times I've wondered whether it has become an all too kneejerk and base a reaction. This is one of those times. It could be that humanitarian odd couples such as Hague and the now Dame Angelina work together more fruitfully than they are ever given credit for. Maybe it's the reaction of some of the rest of us that isn't always entirely sincere. How wearing Marcus Wareing could prove to be Alarming to hear that Marcus Wareingcorrect is taking over from Michel Roux Jr as judge on MasterChef: The Professionals. Roux presided in the style of a benevolent despot: all would be well unless your congealed jus displeased him. As a MasterChef guest judge, Wareing always came across as angry and contemptuous about everything. The food. The contestants. The oxygen they were daring to breathe. Once, he glared at a plate of food and its maker as though they were different strains of the Ebola virus. Me scared! Having Wareing on MasterChef feels akin to inviting Darth Vader to babysit – terrifying and counterproductive, and not just for contestants. I'm one of those MasterChef viewers who can't cook: my idea of "fixing a delicious lunch" is wrapping a slice of bread around a banana. (Wholemeal, mind – I have my standards.) I'm part of MasterChef's "bewildered outsider" demographic. With Wareing, I'm not sure I'd feel welcome or even safe. Is he going to jump out of the screen, yelling: "That's not the correct way to wrap bread around a banana"? Let's hope that Wareing will be tweaking his signature style for his new MasterChef role. |