I love movies. I love Hollywood, and Hollywood cinema. Fresh-popped popcorn gets me a little high, and I think the little changeover cues in the corners of the frame are cute. And God help me, I’m just as hooked on television as everybody. But there are quite a few things about Hollywood I hate.

Most of the things I can’t stand have to do with excess: Bloated productions, overinflated star salaries, celebrity obsession. And I hate them because I love movies. I studied film in college, and I know that the medium has the power to transform lives, to stir and inspire, the elevate our lives and broaden the very horizons of our existence. The elements of film’s power– cinematography, storytelling, montage, acting, all the parts of the whole– are rarely if ever served by excesses most people associate with the business of making movies.

(I could split hairs here: One could argue there is a strange art to cinematic excess. I’ll even go back to Daniel’s new acquisition Showgirls as an example: too much sex, too much scenery-chewing, too hateful, nihilistic and decadent. But that film is as perfectly proportional as a chorine’s gams. In fact, the film’s only misstep, it’s only true excess, is the rape of Nomi’s roommate Molly. It was pure brutality, and it didn’t fit into the logical, self-contained universe of sexual politics within the film. That scene alone is the probable reason Showgirls remains a guilty pleasure, rather than a beloved cult classic.)

But there is only one thing about Hollywood that has managed to simultaneously disgust AND baffle me: the phenomenon of swag bags and gift suites.

Celebrity presenters, award nominees and other such high-profile celebrities are routinely given “goodie bags” for their participation. These usually contain incredibly valuable luxury items, with some goodie bags reaching $100,000 in value. In an article from the Washington Post:

The contents of [2005's] official Oscar bag included four nights at the Vera Wang suite at the Halekulani Hotel on Waikiki Beach, handcrafted truffles in a silk box, a private dinner party at Mortons, a vintage silk kimono, a Krups premium pump espresso machine, personalized dog training, a pearl-and-diamond necklace, spa treatments, surfing lessons, two nights and days of wine tasting in Carmel, Calif., mobile phones, a cashmere travel blanket and “an at-home artisanal cheese experience for six.”

We got a nice little glimpse of this world in the episode “Luxury Lounge” in “The Sopranos.” Christopher Moltisanti, in LA trying to get his film Cleaver produced, happened upon a gift suite in the Beverly Hilton Hotel. The quintessential amoral mobster, Chris was nonetheless blown away at the excesses and lavishness of the whole affair– even Ben Kingsley’s excuses were not enough to make the idea palatable. He ended up mugging Lauren Bacall to get her goodie bag.

So what we have here are pampered, overpaid, attractive celebrities being showered with thousands of dollars worth of free swag for showing up for an event they were going to already. It got so bad the IRS had to get involved.

The Sundance Film Festival is currently underway up in Park City. At one time, it truly was as founder Robert Redford intended, an anti-Hollywood celebration of the independent filmmaker. Now it’s just another bloated tinseltown event, replete with goodie bags and gift suites.

But not this year. In yet another example of the WGA strike having some unintended good effects (i.e. killing award shows), the celebrities who have shown up in force in Park City are steering clear of conspicuous decadence, eschewing the free $1000 sunglasses and weekends at La Costa. According to an eye-opening column in Variety, celebs are actually saying no to swag this year. When there are so many of their industry peers out of work, grabbing freebies could only make them look bad.

Top celebs, it seems, have a case of swag backlash. They’re being more circumspect this year, eschewing obvious gift suite appearances and the attendant phalanx of photogs.

This is a very, very good thing. If this pang of modesty can only be sustained after the WGA strike ends it may lead to other good things, like reasonable acting fees and thus better movies. But wishful thinking aside, I still had the original baffling question: Why the hell do all these companies go through all the trouble? Why reward a bunch of privileged actors with high-end consumer goods, things they should be paying full retail for? Well, the article finally gave the the answer– and then some:

On one level, it’s a sort of philanthropy to provide cash-poor indie producers with events they couldn’t otherwise afford. More importantly, it’s the only way to assure sponsors that their products will have a shot at name-brand actor adjacency.

Companies like Fendi or Gucci or Patek Phillippe– basically, anybody who advertises in Vanity Fair or W– get something when they give away swag. They get a celebrity using or wearing their product. The giveaway moment, when the attractive company rep hands the Rolex to the A-lister, is usually photographed, and the fact is disseminated to counter staff and high-end service providers from Manhattan to Santa Monica (“Oh, you should try this one. You know, Naomi Watts wears it”).

Generally it all looks like a fairly Showbiz-style relationship: You use us, we use you, everyone’s happy. But wouldn’t you think luxury goods and services sort of sell themselves? After all, the general public knows them fairly well through ads in high-end magazines and event sponsorship. Why would they need to cut into their profit margin by giving away what they should be selling? Why are elite companies as deferent to celebrities as the average velvet-rope gawker?

It’s because Celebrity has become just that powerful.

Celebrities are the subject of obsessive media scrutiny of historic proportions. One only had to watch the behavior of the paparazzi when Britney Spears had her big 5150 melt-down a few weeks back to watch this obsession made plain. The pack of photographers tracked her every move from house to ambulance with an animal intensity, focused on the goal of “capturing” their wigged-out prey. It was beyond a wolf-pack: it reminded me of a school of fish, moving and thinking as one, mindless reflex, flashing strobes rather than scales.

They do it for us. They do it because we’ll buy the pictures and watch the videos and talk about them and ask for more. And I’m not just talking about Jane Haircurlers in the check-out line at Winn-Dixie or Joe Office-Gossip downloading stuff from TMZ.com. The well-off are just as obsessed– Perhaps more, because from where they are, celebrity lifestyle becomes a matter of status.

It’s all excess, and excess is not good for anyone. It is especially bad for the art of filmmaking. So I’m going to put out a big attaboy for the stars and the celebrated who have decided to back away from the Gift Suite, to not pick up the Goodie Bag. I hope the new attitude lasts, and spreads.

–Skot C.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 21st, 2008 at 8:16 pm and is filed under Acting, Ancilliaries, General, Internet, Marketing, Motion Pictures, Oscars!. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.