Watch Out, Angelina

Last week, news outlets around the world announced that Madonna was reinventing herself, yet again. Although she has not abandoned using sex and religion to get attention, she has found a new way to drum up record sales: charity. The former material girl was to adopt a one-year-old boy from Malawi, an African country with one million children orphaned by the AIDS epidemic.

Only 24 hours after this story broke, however, Madonna’s publicist insisted that the performer was not so much adopting one child but “kind of adopting an entire country of children.” When pressed for clarification, it was revealed that Madonna was actually considering spending $3 million to reduce poverty in Malawi and another $1 million on a documentary (presumably about spending $3 million to help the country). She was not going to be bringing back a new charge (or “an entire country of children”) to her English estate.

Madonna’s recent interest in charitable giving has already received significant press coverage, but a lot of it has been lost amidst the shake-up on Capitol Hill. Nonetheless, Madonna is a savvy businesswoman, and her version of “development” is definitely provocative; it’s only a matter of time before Madonna is everywhere, yet again.

Just take a quick look at “Raising Malawi,” Madonna’s latest project. Every aspect has been carefully tailored to provoke discussion, disagreement, and comment—in short, media attention. Soon enough, it will be the talk of Tinseltown, with its very own “Livestrong”-style bracelet.

The keystone of “Raising Malawi” is the creation of an “orphan care center” meant to provide 4,000 children with the bare essentials of life, i.e. healthy food, a proper education, and daily lessons in Jewish mysticism. Madonna’s not stupid; she knows that people are skeptical of Kaballah, but she also knows that there’s no such thing as bad press. Most importantly, all of “Raising Malawi” will, of course, be turned into a “documentary” that will likely be an extended photo-op showing us Madonna’s concern for the people of Malawi.

In a way, Madonna seems to be preparing to overtake Angelina Jolie, Oprah, Bono, and all the rest as the leader of the Hollywood “development” crowd. After all, Angelina has only adopted two children from impoverished countries; by the time Madonna’s done, she will have adopted an entire nation’s worth of kids.

Although it might be too early to say that Madonna’s “Raising Malawi” will be a success, if it is, will Angelina and company feel the need to increase their charitable giving? Oprah could very well respond by buying cars for each man, woman, and child in the Third World. Angelina might adopt every last sub-Saharan baby that has not already been claimed. A veritable “babe-in-arms race” might ensue, as Hollywood elites stockpile orphans and worry about a charitable-giving gap.

This build-up will obviously benefit the world’s poor, but it will also benefit the givers themselves. As strange as it may sound, by giving money to all of these causes, these celebrities will more than likely get more money back.

I like to call this the “Bono effect.” Named after the granddaddy of all self-righteous entertainers who have melded promotion with selflessness, the “Bono effect” tells us that if you give away enough money in a highly visible manner, you will get back even more money through the magic of publicity. You might say that this “Bono effect” puts a whole new spin on the concept of doing work “pro-Bono.”

While the “Bono effect” may not be bona fide science, it does help in framing an important question about all of this celebrity giving, namely: Cui bono, or, who benefits? Of course the people of the Third World will receive large amounts of aid, and that is a good thing. But we also have to remember that people like Madonna may not have the purest motivations. That being said, if a few stars can make more money, and some of the poorest people can have better lives as well, what’s wrong with that? We might even be better off if stars start vying for attention through good deeds instead of the normal route of scandal.

Through the “Bono effect,” as strange as it might seem at face value, Madonna might someday no longer have to rely on provocative stunts involving pointed bras and crucifixes in order to stay visible. This would help Madonna, the children of Malawi, and us. We wouldn’t have to deal with Madonna’s sensationalism, the children of Malawi would get $3 million worth of aid (and a movie about it), and Madonna could sell a few more records. Everyone wins.



Charles R. Drummond ’09 is a history concentrator in Adams House. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.