“Why are you a billionaire?”: The Necessity and Authenticity of Charity in Hollywood
In her acceptance speech for the Music Innovator Award at the WSJ Magazine Innovator Awards last week, Billie Eilish urged other celebrities to use their wealth for good: in a world that’s “really, really bad and really dark” where “people need empathy”, Eilish stressed the importance of successful, wealthy figures helping those in need and funding impactful causes. The singer-songwriter shed light on a heavy topic in a light-hearted tone, not wanting to alter the atmosphere amongst her peers, stating, “no hate, but yeah, give your money away, shorties.”
Was her speech just a ploy to broadcast her so-called ‘generosity’?
The speech was applauded by many – although, notably not by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, according to audience eyewitnesses. Therefore, it begs an important question: are many wealthy figures spanning various industries willing to fund the betterment of the world? Moreover, which ones do so performatively, and which genuinely?
Eilish herself was reported by Stephen Colbert at the ceremony to be donating $11.5 million to several charities following the conclusion of her Hit Me Hard and Soft tour on 23rd November. Praised for her contribution to combatting the climate crisis in particular, Eilish can be viewed as the morally correct example of her own word. However, how necessary was it to announce such a big act of altruism? Charity is widely seen as having the most genuine impact when performed privately, avoiding public praise, so was it the case that publicising Eilish’s charitable use of wealth undermined the authenticity of her message? Was her speech just a ploy to broadcast her so-called ‘generosity’?
Eilish has spoken on the climate crisis for years. Her collaboration with Global Citizen back in 2019 allowed fans to earn tickets to her sold-out 2020 world tour, while educating themselves on environmental issues and contributing to global sustainability. The artist has also made her tours as environmentally-friendly as possible, banning straws and encouraging fans to bring their own refillable water bottles to shows. Therefore, it is likely unfair to say that Eilish’s speech was simply a performance for public approval. From collaborating with fellow celebrity Woody Harrelson on a call-out video on climate action, expressing support for movements such as Greenpeace, to her massive donation, Eilish has a long history of maintaining her values and their widespread impact.
Maybe they are simply too out of touch to fully grasp the necessity of their moral integrity
Despite this, performative activism is an ongoing topic of scrutiny for those in the public eye. To what extent is a celebrity acting in accordance with their moral compass, and to what extent are they maintaining appearances of kindness? As a result, those that have the power to do immense good with their wealth risk the greatest criticism.
One such example was the speculation surrounding Taylor Swift’s carbon footprint in 2023. Reportedly, the singer’s private jet emitted approximately 9,142 metric tons of carbon in 2022. Even though Swift was not as vocal on climate as she was on other activist topics, such as feminism, the statistics and her silence on the matter sparked mockery from the public. With one of the biggest, most devoted fanbases in the music industry, Swift undoubtedly has the power to enlist fans in beneficial causes and the wealth to act individually. Though celebrated widely as an activist for speaking up on misogyny, homophobia, and wider human rights, can she really hold that title when she has been criticised of “declining” and “empty” activism as a “shallow celebrity” in more recent years?
Another massive celebrity under fire for issues of empty activism is Leonardo DiCaprio, to broaden the scope of discussion beyond the music industry. Despite having poured vast amounts of his $300 million net worth into environmental conservation, DiCaprio became swamped in controversy in 2023 for the pollution caused by his multi-million-dollar superyacht, labelled scathingly as an “eco-hypocrite”.
Perhaps, in a heavily idealised world, a billionaire in any industry wouldn’t even exist
Naturally, acting both beneficially and harmfully towards the same cause questions the honesty of such successful figures’ claims to care – maybe they are simply too out of touch to fully grasp the necessity of their moral integrity.
Eilish’s point is to maintain empathy and the consistency of action amongst people in power. Words alone do not make the biggest impact: the wealthy are influential are capable of far more. The message targets the humility of people in positions of success – positions that all powerhouses in the music industry would not be in without the support of worldwide fanbases. Perhaps, in a heavily idealised world, a billionaire in any industry wouldn’t even exist. Too much of their personal wealth would go to the war-torn countries, the alone and homeless, the melting Arctic, for them to obtain that status of monetary power – we can only hope…
Comments