The nature of celebrity

So with the surge of celebrity news on this site has led me to wonder about this:how celebrities are treated. Sometimes Celeb news items get derailed into this discussion and nothing ever actually gets discussed, just the usual canned answers, so I'd like to get some views. There are a couple ways of looking at it, to me.

You could say being an entertainer demands that you be in the public eye, and that if you're really successful at your job, you have to expect that the public will see more of you. It's the nature of the job. Firemen get injured on the job, politicians are expected to have adhered to higher standard of morality even before they began their career, and so on. It's a job hazard.

But that does that make it right? How many times have I heard people say, "Clinton almost got impeached over a blowjob?! That's bullshit."? But it's part of the job. Being President means you're held to a higher standard of behavior for the four to eight years you're there. Teachers don't get paid well? Then don't teach. And so on and so forth.

So should your choice of career (actor, director, musician, athlete) really give other people the moral right to treat you like shit? Just because you're successful at what you do? I mean, I'm an actor/director in the theatre. I'm obviously not in it for the money or fame, because the odds of gaining either of those in vast amounts are virtually nil, especially in the theatre. So let's say I get a couple of shows under my belt, become artistic director of a relatively successful theatre, get asked to do a small film for a PBS series, and from there get a chance at a small feature film. Should I pass that opportunity up if I'm a private person, and don't want to risk being the next Tim Burton or Woody Allen, with my personal life dissected and plastered across hundreds of magazines? Should actors and musicians and athletes have to not pursue the highest levels of their profession because they want privacy?

I'd say the golden rule holds for all people, famous or not.

A person has to do what's best for them. In this culture, you can't have both fame and privacy. It's all about that particular choice, unless we can create a massive social movement that changes the way our society functions.

But there are plenty of actors/musicians/athletes who aren't looking for fame. They just want to pursue their career as best they can.

Yes, but like you said in your original post, teachers expect shit pay, firemen expect flames. Same thing goes with success in public arenas of celebrity, you have to expect interest and attention regardless of it's unwanted nature.

But should it be? Should teachers get paid $26,000/year? Should successful actors have to expect no privacy? Firemen risking their lives against fires is inevitable. It's a necessary part of their job.

Very interesting subject - something I've thought about, too.

The nature of celebrity, I believe, is both vicarious experience & identification.

Celebrity represents the Realization of an audience's fantasy. Moreover, human beings respond to other human beings with whom they can relate, or more specifically, in whom we can see ourselves.........(Lacan, mirror stage theory). So, we as individuals (celebrities included) relate to Famous People's Lives as if they were screens upon which we project our own image.

For example, I relate to Elizabeth Taylor for specific reasons. But I respond to Marilyn Monroe because she's kind of the ultimate object of projection.

However, as capitalism has surpassed Art as the measure of a man's soul, we now have the phenomenon of Lowest Common Denominator............or, who is the LCD of an audience's desires? The answer today appears to be Paris Hilton: sex, $, & PR.

I understand what you're saying, Clov. My background is fine art........and I fled my career for a life of slackerdom, because even in the rarefied art world (post-Warhol, of course) fame eclipses talent, and I would rather be talented than famous. In fact, I would rather be dead than famous........if famous means living like a dumb slut for the sake of capital.

RIP Marlon Brando

While I personally think this is a thread to drag out dislike for celeb articles in general on this site, I will play along. Also, realistically speaking, your question has very little basis in our (American) culture as these things are already fairly ingrained unless it is purely to speculate on what you deem as ideal theory.

Do I think that teachers (and other vital positions: scientists, nurses, firemen, etc.) should be paid more and given higher regard? Yes. Do I think that a good teacher should merit a higher paycheck than an actor? That's a given. Is it likely to happen anytime soon? No.

Should actors give up their privacy? I think for the amount of money and perks, as well as all the other good and bad things wrapped up in the ribbon of fame...they should expect that a good portion of their pivacy is going to be gone. I don't see how you can expect that the nature of a job should be separated from the person who chooses to do it. Also, conversely, some celebrities utilize this attention to make their fame greater. WilWheaton made a very relevant post in the News group on this very topic.

I think your argument may contain ideal theory, but in fact, it is just not realistic in our social framework.

what i dont like is the way some people act when they comment on celebrity. if celebs are not gods, then they are clowns, who are compensated heavily to endure your ridicule. (there seriously must be something in scientology that relieves this stress or something) the thing is, i can comment on an actors performance for days, but the minute you get into his personal life i get seriously bored. and i get creeped out by people who are really into following celebrity like the life of a celebrity is a show in and of itself. (contrast that to a celebrities personal views, like margaret cho's blog, that i really enjoy.)

Have you ever known me to slag the Celeb worship group or the Celeb news?

This topic is exactly what I said it was. It's about me wanting to get people's input about something that the Celeb news has made me wonder about.

[Edited on Apr 17, 2006 by Clov]

Why? Why does appearing on TV or in films automatically mean people should be allowed to pick apart the private details of your life?

We separate people from their jobs all the time. I don't know if my postal worker is going through a divorce. Why should I know if Jessica Simpson is?

I honestly don't understand why people believe that being in the public eye as a profession means that someone should be in the public eye at all times, regardless if the matter is personal or professional.

This relates to my philosophy about conduct in general, but it falls to living your life how it should be, or how it is. Either you live according to your beliefs and try to make the world fit accordingly, or you live according to how things are, and you fit accordingly.

I think no job has to have the burdens that they do, celebrities and privacy invasion, etc. Morally, I think some positions come with an inherent moral standard. Mostly I think of people in leadership positions, and role-models.

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Papparazzi are assholes. Most of the time, anyhow. They feed off of drama, literally. The more shocking and invasive a story, the more they get paid. It's sick. They have no right invading the privacy of others.

A lot of respected talent in the film industry hates this.

Whereas, on the other hand, some strive on it. Just look at Paris Hilton. Who the FUCK is Paris Hilton?! Why the hell did she make the fucking tabloids?! She had a flunk reality program that lasted way fucking longer than it should have, and the only reason it did remotely well is because of the "accidentally" leaked homemade porno she made with Spencer-whats-his-face married to chick from Charmed... I dunno...

Without the tabloids, Paris Hilton would have no "career" and as sick as it sounds... she'd prolly be just as well off. What with her family's obvious wealth and whatnot.

She's a tool and a cokehead and a whore. And a lot of stupid people look up to her as a role model. Why? Because of all the wrong reasons. Papparazzi likes the whole "she's American Royalty" bullshit. They watch her every move. They talk about whatever she's wearing. It's stupid. I hate it.

But, like has been said ample times already: This is to be expected in this industry. There are, however, a bunch of people who successfully and easily avoid the press. It's all personal preferrence. I strive to one day make movies that will entertain the shit out of people. Do I wanna be rich and famous? I dunno... All I know is that I wanna make enough money to let my children pursue whatever they want in life without the probability that they won't have enough money or connections that they need. (AKA - The problem I face with entering the film industry)

Papparazzi is a dumb fucking concept to me. Annoying and invasive. But unfortunately, it's part of North America. Some people wake up wanting to hear the latest celebrity gossip. They want to wear what their favourite stars are wearing. They want to imitate. The want to emulate. They want to pretend they are a star. And some celebrities need it. Some want it. Some crave it.

Not for me, but I understand it.

In short, and as has been said... If you are too afraid of the possibility of certain quirks that come with a career, consider choosing another career. Pros - Cons = Decision.