Increasingly, when I try to define a modern malaise, I find myself reaching for Larry David’s deliciously dyspeptic series, Curb your Enthusiasm. In one especially grumpy (and therefore increasingly recognisable to me) episode, David donates money to a building and has a wing named after him. But his pride in his philanthropy is shattered when he learns that the other wing’s donor has opted to remain anonymous and therefore looks more modest. But in fact, “anonymous” is David’s friend Ted Danson, and everybody knows it.
“Nobody told me I could be anonymous and tell people!” Larry rages at his wife, Cheryl. “I would have taken that option, OK? You’re either anonymous or not. You can’t have it both ways. It’s fake philanthropy and it’s faux anonymity.”
Sadly, I do not have a wing named after me, either openly or anonymously. I don’t even have a teaspoon named after me. But among the many things I share with David is his confused irritation with the mores of modern philanthropy.
Beating cancer, one narcissistic hashtag at a time
I try to be a good person. I have been known to phone my parents occasionally and actually listen to what they say. And I no longer make faces at people on public transport behind their back (it’s astonishing that the Nobel peace prize went to Malala instead of me).
So it’s not pleasant when I realise that the thing that riles me more than anything else in my daily life is certain people’s endeavours to raise money for charity. Yes, I’m talking about charity selfies - and, in particular, charity celebrity selfies.
Let us recap the recent roster of celebrity selfie charity endeavours. Last spring, there was the #nomakeupselfie (gotta have a hashtag), which involved women - famous and “civilians”, to use Elizabeth Hurley’s unforgettable phrase for the great unwashed - posting photos of themselves without makeup in the name of curing cancer. Because if there’s one thing as scary as fighting cancer, it’s showing the world what you look like without makeup. Beating cancer, one narcissistic hashtag at a time.
Next was the ubiquitously covered Ice Bucket Challenge, which my colleague Hannah Marriott so wisely described as “a moving wet T-shirt competition”. In this, everyone from Kate Moss to Tom Cruise chucked water over themselves (a notable number seemed to involve female celebrities in bikinis on the beach) to raise money for the Motor Neurone Disease Association and nominated fellow celebrities to follow suit.
#WakeUpCall selfie
I coped with these initiatives. Which is to say, I gritted my teeth, acknowledged that they raised some money for charity, but otherwise ignored them because I don’t give a fig what Holly Willoughby looks like without makeup or how Gisele looks beneath a bucket. Nor do I see what this kind of self-aggrandisement or celebrity mutual backslapping has to do with fighting illness.
But it’s for charity - mustn’t carp, right? But my God, it’s so annoying! Charity! Annoying! Charity! Argh! Did I say “I coped”? I meant, my brain split in two. And now comes the #WakeUpCall selfie and I’m afraid I cannot hold my tongue any more.
This involves celebrities posting photos of themselves showing the world what they look like first thing in the morning so as to help the rest of us “wake up” to Syria (get it?). A photo of Jeremy Clarkson in bed first thing in the morning does not make me want to give to Unicef’s Syria emergency appeal. It makes me want to rip out my eyes, reject the modern world, move to the Outer Hebrides and weave clothes out of brambles.
Is this really what we have come to - needing to see photos of luminaries such as Nicky Hilton and Elle Macpherson in bed in order to give money to Unicef? Since when did charity become some kind of beauty pageant in which famous women flaunt their “natural” looks? Although on that note, I must tip my hat to Naomi Campbell, who, judging from her charity selfie, wakes up every morning with a full face of makeup.
More “let’s help the Syrian people” and less “Syria - it’s all about me!”,
Incidentally, Campbell also told the New York Post this week that she is going to stage a celebrity fashion show (is there any other kind any more?) to raise money for the fight against Ebola. Campbell is concerned about Ebola, you see, because she has a house in Kenya and “Ebola doesn’t discriminate”. That’s right - Ebola, shockingly, doesn’t recognise celebrities. Perhaps someone should show it Campbell’s selfie.
Yes, this is all for charity, and that’s great. But you can quibble with the means of raising money for charity without dissing charity itself.
So maybe someone, somewhere, could think of a way to give money that doesn’t involve celebrities inflicting constant photos of themselves on the public? More “let’s help the Syrian people” and less “Syria - it’s all about me!”, perhaps?
Maybe, she says Larry Davidishly, people could just give to charity and not photograph themselves doing so. After all, the only negative feeling anyone should have about charity is guilt that they don’t give more, not abject irritation with how their donations are being solicited.
The charity celebrity selfie I would like to see is one in which Macpherson and Hilton point to a map and show they know where Syria is. Otherwise, I am driven to Davidesque rages. And don’t even get me started on that wretched BBC God Only Knows song.
Guardian News & Media 2014
guardian.co.uk
