Posted on 01/06/2007 7:44:37 PM PST by blam
Diamonds are no longer a girl's best friend
By Chris Hastings, Stephanie Plentl and Beth Jones, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:29am GMT 07/01/2007
Diamonds have been synonymous with Hollywood glamour since Marilyn Monroe declared them to be a girl's best friend in the film Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. But now a new generation of Hollywood stars is shunning the stones as a new film exposes the darker side of the international diamond trade.
Blood Diamond tells the story of forced-labour diamond mines
For the first time in the 79-year history of the Oscars, certain kinds of diamond will be absent from the annual prize-giving ceremony. Normally the awards, which will take place on February 25, are awash with sparkling stones, with some stars even choosing to wear them on their shoes.
But now many of the biggest names in Hollywood are asking agents and diamond experts to ensure they are not photographed wearing illicit diamonds.
The backlash against the stones has led to diamonds being dubbed the "new fur", as stars increasingly try to make sure that they are not wearing anything that might be regarded as unethical.
Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Connelly, the stars of Blood Diamond, as well as Kayne West, the rap artist, the models Iman and Erin O'Connor – the face of Marks and Spencer – are leading the backlash. Blood Diamond, part of which was filmed in London's Hatton Garden diamond district, is set in civil war-ravaged Sierra Leone and tells the story of forced-labour diamond mining companies.
The success of the film, which has already opened in America and comes to UK cinemas at the end of the month, has led to an upsurge in demand for so-called conflict-free diamonds, which carry a certificate of confirmation that their trade is not connected with war, civil strife or human rights abuses.
Gaia Geddes, the jewellery editor at Harper's Bazaar, said: "You have the Oscars and Baftas coming up, and that's when the stars wear very big rocks. This year there will be a lot of focus on conflict-free diamonds and a lot of people will take a stand, just like they did with fur."
Connelly, 36, who plays a journalist in the movie, made a point of wearing "conflict-free" diamonds to the film's American premiere last month.
"I think what I got out of the film is a desire to be a more ethnical consumer," she said. "I did some research and there are companies like Bulgari, like Tiffany, that are striving to be clean and accountable and that provide written guarantees that their diamonds are conflict-free.
Iman pulled out of her contract as the face of De Beers
"No one is saying boycott diamonds but [buyers] can be pro-active and go to their jewellers and say, 'Can you show me a certificate? Can you give me a verifiable warranty that these diamonds are conflict-free?'"
Jane Fonda, the double Oscar-winning actress and friend of the film's producer, Paula Weinstein, has also revealed how she has made sure she only wears conflict-free diamonds.
African tribes in conflict with the diamond industry are actively targeting the world's celebrities in a bid to win them over. Last year, Bushmen in the Kalahari in dispute with De Beers wrote an open letter in Variety to DiCaprio, seeking his support.
Eileen Kelly, the manager of Abiba, a jeweller in Hatton Garden, said: "Recently we have had more and more customers come into the shop because of publicity about the film and ask where the diamonds have come from. We can say that we do not sell conflict diamonds. For the past year we have quite clearly printed on our receipts that our diamonds are conflict-free."
The campaign against the diamond trade had been building up even before the release of Blood Diamond. In 2004 Iman, who is married to the singer David Bowie, pulled out of her contract as the face of De Beers in protest at what she claimed was the company's eviction of tribespeople from their land in Botswana. In 2005, the actress Julie Christie joined a protest outside the Natural History Museum in support of the same tribesmen.
De Beers denies all the allegations levied against it in connection with diamonds. The company declined to comment last night, but a spokesman for the World Diamond Council, the representative body of the diamond industry, said: "We don't have any issue with the film. The important thing is that the movie is based in the past, in 1999, and the situation now is that the vast majority of conflict is over.
"The diamond industry contributes over $8 million (about £4.5 million) per year to local African economies, which helps to build schools, hospitals and provide employment."
"And now that you've hijacked this thread ( another NO NO and absolutely against posting rules )and tried to makes it all about you, you, YOU, I suggest that you go talk with your wife. Perhaps she doesn't give you the attention that you feel that is your due and that is why you are hectoring women here; we are her stand-ins. Well, go take out your misogyny on her."
Nothing personal here, eh?
Do you realize that all I need to do is quote you to make you look like a fool?
"So go ahead and talk to yourself. I however will not bother reading it. Have a nice life Junior."
Hey, thanks for giving me the last word, senior. If I'm your junior, you're no spring chick, hun!
You have the unmitigated gall to call me childish and rude when *you* were the one who asked if I got my wife's engagement ring from a "crackerjack box." (As if it was any of your business anyway!)
If you were as mature morally as you are in years, you would apologize to me rather than trying to bullshit me and everyone else here with your pathetic bluster.
There, I got the last word. But somehow I bet I'll hear from you again. I know your type.
nope, only 21
How would anybody know?
Thanks Bernard!
I'm completely with you on this issue, Russ. I'm a woman, and have been married 14 years, and never have owned or wanted a diamond. When my then fiance asked me what kind of ring I wanted, I told him, a gold band. We picked out a ring together, one that has a pretty design to it, and I have never regretted the decision.
Back then, the campaign deBeers was running showed a photo of a diamond ring, with the text, "Is too months salary really too much to spend on something that lasts forever?" My reponse was, and still is, a resounding YES!
I think it makes me a wiser consumer, one who is not as easily duped by silly marketing gimicks.
I certainly think you and your husband have the right to buy each other whatever you want, though.
I do object to all the characterization of women (not necessarily by you, but in this thread) as shallow and materialistic, who need expensive little pretties to keep them happy.
Well, it gives men a nice excuse: "Honey, let's just live together...I won't marry you until I can afford to buy you the diamond you deserve! It's a matter of principle." ;)
I've seen that "characterization" coming mostly from men who didn't want to spend the dough, on this thread. I agree it's up to couples, what they want to buy - if anything at all.
It's interesting, though, that people do make relationship judgments based on what's on one's finger. I have a fairly large sapphire, and four rows of diamonds in the engagement and wedding bands. A woman (stranger to me) saw them one day and said, "Oh, you have beautiful rings - your husband must really love you." I'm happy to say that he does, but it's not based on what he put on my finger.
I guess you could say I didn't want to spend the dough, and I'm sure he was relieved not to have to. Who wouldn't be?
If I have been standing next to you in line, the women might of told me my husband didn't love me at all, based on the retail value of my ring. ::eyeroll::
Women have the option to do what I did - choose another stone. When I got engaged, colored stones were substantially cheaper than diamonds. There's nothing "magic" to me about a diamond per se; I have enough that I've inherited, so I didn't "need" one as an engagement stone.
I would hope she wouldn't have said anything of the kind! I was kind of taken aback at her assumption of the quality of the love = the quantity/size of the stones!
Or to not choose a stone at all.
yeah.. i found that out when i bought my first wife a (lab created) colour change alexandrite set. I asked about the difference between them and real ones, the jeweler laughed and said he couldn't afford to have that set in his shop if it were real.
it was still a beautiful set. :)
Hey, thanks for the encouraging words. I know there are many women out there who don't fall for the diamond ruse -- the notion that only a diamond can prove your love.
"Back then, the campaign deBeers was running showed a photo of a diamond ring, with the text, "Is too months salary really too much to spend on something that lasts forever?" My reponse was, and still is, a resounding YES!"
I'd call that the deBeers stupidity tax, or tithing for billionaires. What a pity that so many fall for it.
ROFL!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.