To my knowledge, no one has ever asked Clooney exactly why he 'opposes' the war. He won't go on O'Reilly, so my guess is he is short in the courage dept. And long in the self-congratulations dept. After all, claiming to be bold for speaking out against the war from Hollywood is like a fish claiming boldness for staying the water.

Has he gone to Iraq or Afghanistan? Many have. David Letterman went to Iraq. George has some catching up to do.

It's a pretty pathetic commentary on the state of intellectuals in America that a pretentious line-reader is taken seriously as an artist and intellectual force.

"It's a pretty pathetic commentary on the state of intellectuals in America that a pretentious line-reader is taken seriously as an artist and intellectual force."

Just to tie this in with the subject of one of Clooney's recent movies, that's almost exactly the same way that historically we've lionized television news readers, as Burt Prelutsky, himself a veteran Hollywood screenwriter recently turned conservative, noted.

I'd like to think that in terms of both Hollywood and television news, the American public is becoming smarter about the fact that what we're praising is the ability to properly emote during key words and sentences, not some kind of advanced mental reasoning that gives these people keen insight. But I think there's always going to be those who hold both groups on a pedestal.

Ed: Following up on your linked post, the sense that it is faintly ridiculous to pay someone millions of dollars to read a teleprompter led to my least favorite tool of modern journalism: when the anchor interviews the reporter. Leaving aside that it is always stilted and contrived, and that it is self-evident that the reporter wrote the "questions" to which he is responding, it is one "newsman" interviewing another. There really is no there there.

NPR being the ne plus ultra of the modern newsbiz, Morning Edition and ATC consist of almost nothing but the anchor interviewing the reporter.

I think people will always admire acting talent, because acting is something that not everyone can do well. What's changing, I think, is that people used to (or, at least, the media sure made it look like people used to) equate acting talent with what might be called "general intellectual omnicompetence." So long as actors were smart enough to maintain a classy image in public (however debauched they were in private), and the media was willing to go along with the pretense, this fiction could be maintained. With the rise of celebrity journalism, actors with more sense of entitlement than common sense now routinely embarass themselves in public, and the fiction collapses.

Intellectuals? Clooney, someone who may or may not have finished high school? How about narcissistic pompous big mouths?

Mike Morley,
I agree with your post but I don't think it applies to most actors. Many of the most popular actors (Clooney, Harrison Ford, Tom Cruise, Clint Eastwood ...) play the same character in most every movie. When you see them in an interview, their gestures and expressions are the same as when acting. It's more about luck and genetics than talent.

Patrick,

"When you see them in an interview, their gestures and expressions are the same as when acting. It's more about luck and genetics than talent."

I think that especially with some of the older actors, you could/can see the difference between acting and their public personas when they went on a talk show. I know James Garner has said that he's terrified of public speaking, and he was always incredibly reserved when appearing, on say, The Tonight Show. I think Paul Newman is a bit the same. But given a decent script and a competent director, they can both turn it on and project star power.

(But that doesn't mean I should care about their opinions on anything beyond which camera lens and lighting fresnel makes them look the best.)