Conspiracy theory

Kristin Long Daily Arts Editor

The differences between the worlds of art and politics are the sheer imagination, the illustrious appearances and the high-profile relationships.

No, wait. Those are the similarities.

When the two apparently mutually exclusive entities collide, it's like a world event filled with a lot of pomp and circumstance.

Such is the case with the latest White House scandal involving Bill Clinton, who is accused of having had a sexual rendezvous of some kind with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

I'm convinced that there's someone else behind all of this. So Clinton is the president of the United States, and perhaps he did lie in some preliminary hearing, and maybe oral sex is adulterous, but perhaps what we really should be noticing are those in the arts and entertainment industry - those who sit in the shadows of this scandal, while their productions profit from it.

I am not just throwing around allegations against the culture executives, blaming them for this presidential scandal. No, no, that's just ludicrous. But what I am saying is that maybe they have a greater role in these happenings than we can see with the naked eye (slight pun intended).

This is merely a theory, which I personally think is a rather intellectual and creative one at that, but a theory nonetheless.

When word of this crisis first came out in mid-January, there was talk of Lewinsky, secret tapes and her mysterious excommunication from the White House to the Pentagon. But these are merely the trees. We need to take a look at the forest here, folks.

While we were watching and waiting for some word from the president, news programs filled their time with similarities between the current scandal and the plot of a recently released film, "Wag the Dog."

"Wag the Dog" tells the story of a fictional war devised by the president's top advisers. They attempt to divert the public's attention from a recent White House crisis regarding a Firefly Girl who accused the president of sexual advances in his private office.

The New York Times reported that "Wag the Dog" ticket sales in Washington, D.C. increased 5 percent last weekend. The film's gross increased 2 percent this past weekend alone. Maybe 2 percent and 5 percent are not big numbers, but for a film that has been at theaters for six weeks, has only received Golden Globe nominations (no awards) and has an uncertain Oscar future, that's pretty damn good.

"As Good as It Gets," the Jack Nicholson-Helen Hunt comedy, has been at theaters for six weeks as well, but its gross this past weekend decreased by 12 percent.

Coincidence? Chance? I think not.

While television anchors were talking about "Wag the Dog," they also casually mentioned "Primary Colors," scheduled to open March 20.

This film is based on the bestselling novel by Joe Klein, who originally denied having authored the book because of its sensitive topic. According to the Jan. 26 New York Times, he recently sold the film rights for $1.5 million to director Mike Nichols, who also directed "The Graduate."

"Primary Colors" involves a Clinton-like Southern governor (John Travolta) on the campaign trail for the presidency. The trailer alludes to some extramarital affairs and the steps he takes to redeem his reputation. Is this just art imitating life again? Interesting.

The Times said "Primary Colors" is "destined for success." No kidding. The film began its promotion at the end of December, I believe, and now it has immense free publicity. It also has the evening news on its side. Cha-ching!

Moreover, could the scandal come at any better time? A film that depicts a man who looks like Clinton, sounds like Clinton and is charged with an affair like Clinton - it's an interesting parallel we've got here.

There has to be some connection here with this "free" publicity. Why have both of these films suddenly found a pot of golden advertising in the Clinton crisis? Something under the table perhaps? A little payback?

I had a crazy thought that it had something to do with the National Endowment for the Arts. The struggling organization was almost destroyed last year, but was restored thanks to Clinton. This year its spending is $98 million, the lowest it has been in two years, but in the new budget, Clinton requested $136 million for the NEA. Yes, Clinton is a broad supporter of the NEA.

But did you know that in 1995, the NEA was allocated $162.3 million (according to the NEA Website, http://arts.endow.gov), but then it dropped to $99.5 million in the 1996 and 1997 fiscal years, and finally to $98 million this year? Now, it all comes together.

The Times also reported that both CNN's and MSNBC's ratings have doubled. Hillary Clinton made an appearance on the "Today" show and its ratings rose 40 percent - not to mention the profit that Time and Newsweek made off of their cover stories.

Then I realized that this had to be a really bizarre idea, too off-the-wall. But this is quite the coincidence to say the least. Quite the coincidence.

- Kristin Long can be reached via e-mail at klong@umich.edu

02-05-98