The cult of the celebrity

[shadowkat]

Frustrated. But that's Monday for you - employed or otherwise, frustrating. What is it about Mondays? Now I have the old sixties tune Munday/Munday...in my head and just that lyric Munday...Munday. It would be one thing if I could remember the whole song, but nooo just that bit of lyric. Highly annoying. Happens with most songs. Enough to drive one crazy - but not too crazy, want to see crazy? Wander about the internet for a while, actually you don't have to wander that far, just wander about livejournal. Or better yet into assorted fandoms.



Over the past few months - I've seen and heard of a few disturbing incidents regarding what I like to refer to as "the cult of celebrity" that has me contemplating what it is about human beings that make us want to objectify each other. Or more to the point, objectify people we don't know but see constantly on the screen? By objectify - for want of a better word - I mean, make into an object, something that is not human but merely a symbol or character - not real. Why do we put people up on pedestals to worship and mock and lust after? Until they become statues to us, hardy toys for our play?

I'm beginning to understand why television and movie *stars* make as much money as they do - it's for all the crap their audience puts them through after the show airs. There's a reason why Shakespearen theaters had a gap between the audience and the stage - to protect the actors from their adoring fans. Once you become even mildly successful on either the big or small screen or in the public eye on some issue - your privacy becomes history. Look at Princess Diana, who couldn't so much as sneeze without twenty photographers clicking. You can't go out without someone invading your personal space or thinking they own a piece of you, merely because you happened to appear for 43 minutes each week on their television screen. The more successful or sexually attractive you are - the worse it gets. And if you happen to star in a cult tv show? Watch out. Because unlike mainstream TV, cult has nice little ancilliary products which encourage this type of worship - dolls, trading cards, etc - all with your likeness.

While some members of the audience are content to sit and just watch an actor entertain from afar, others have this odd desire to get up close and personal, which in of itself isn't such a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with wanting to see an actor in person to hear him speak about his craft. Anymore than there is anything wrong with going to a seminar. When things get dicey is when people stop treating the actor as a fellow human being who eats, shits, drinks, sleeps, and swears like the rest of us and instead, like playthings to write fiction about, slander at will, and maul in public. When the actor ceases being a working stiff playing a role and becomes in the viewers mind - an icon, a symbol - something to adore or if disappointed, mock. That's the thing, if the object of adoration fails the viewer/fan in any way - they become an object for mockery. Once the actor becomes a celebrity - they cease being human in some viewers eyes. And once that happens they cease to have *any* personal rights in the fans eyes. Life, liberty, personal privacy laws cease to exist. Fans will treat celebrities the way they wouldn't treat their worst enemy or closest friend. If the celebrity doesn't make any mistakes - ie. is perfect, the fan will adore and worship and shower him/her with gifts and attention. If, however, the celebrity disappoints the fan for any reason - they will mock, humilate, and treat the celebrity with derision. They become in effect the object of whatever punishment or rewards the fan wishes to foist upon them.

Of course the entertainment industry encourages and enables this behavior in fans by producing dolls with the actor's likeness, posters, and paying the actors lots of money to put in public appearances, which in turn has the effect of turning the actor in the eyes of their fans into an icon of sorts -something to be played with, adored, worshiped, criticized - but not treated as a human being with foibles, weaknesses, and desires. I've never understood why the moment someone becomes marginally famous they stop being human in our eyes. We justify our actions in the same way a sociopath might justify killing someone - well they asked for it. Or they put themselves up there for us to look at it. They are getting paid for it. I'm just doing what everyone else is. But if we took a moment to examine what we are doing...what would happen? A moment of self-awareness. Perhaps? I don't know. But I can completely understand why most professional actors stay off the internet. I would. Or I'd end up suing everyone and get bogged down in law bills. Can you think of anything more humilating to see online than your own personal history and likeness manipulated into a twisted NC-17 story? (I'm not talking about *fictional* characters here, I mean real people). Just imagine someone that you don't know writing about you and your next door neighbor having sex and inter-spersing it with details about your childhood and background? Say someone from livejournal who managed to take your personal data, knows your name, knows your friends names - and has written a story, published it on the internet for millions of unknown people to read, and does it under a pseudonyme? (Someone could do it by the way - we reveal quite a bit about ourselves in our journals, but we trust they won't because that would be crossing the line. Just as we would never do that to them.) Or what would it be like to be a speaker at a seminar - you are being paid to give a two day lecture, have been promised security, and when you get there you are placed in a private villa, isolated from people you know, fellow speakers - who are all in another location together, you have no food, drink or entertainment. You have to ask for everything to be brought to you. You can't wander about - due to security problems. And you are keyed up due to personal issues - such as a work colleague is in the hospital, another colleague and friend just got out, and you got some fantastic news that could change your life. When you ask for a drink - they send you a cart of alcohol. Then when you do go out in public, the convention goers want to maul you. They expect hugs and kisses. Sure you get paid close to 100,000 for the appearance and yeah the idea all these people adore you must feel great, but I can't help but wonder if it is worth it? The things people will do for money or a sense of validation. Look at all the reality shows.

Yet, we feel no sympathy for these people and justify our own behavior as being acceptable. Why? They make more money than we do? They have what we think we want? Envy? Jealousy? Boredom? What is it about us - that makes us engage in this behavior? Worse enjoy it? And how does that make us any different than the metaphorical vampires we watch on TV? They feed on blood, we feed on...humilation? pain? mockery?

Comments

Re: Struggling with it myself..

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

I seem to take less of an interest in actor's lives than other fans. I do like behind-the-scenes interviews where they say what it's like to work on the set, but I generally don't read interviews where they describe what their home life is like. It's not that interesting to me.

I think some fans want a feeling of control they get from writing about actor's lives, and real-life details gives you that feeling of control. Not all RP fic writers are like this, but some are. I mean, thinking of it: there's someone you find attractive and can objectify because you don't run into them in real life (much) and you can basically treat them like a doll you can dress up in different costumes and play-act them doing anything you want. And since they *are* a real person, the feeling of control's got to be immense. This is in contrast to people who actually stalk real people, whether they are celebrities or not. Stalking is ultimately an exercise in frustration if you can't control the life of your "quarry". Sitting back and just writing stories with as many real details as possible gives a much higher level of control.

When I was in junior high, I wrote a few RP fics, and it was a lot of fun imaging what it must be like to be that celebrity, to imagine what his life was like, to live in his world. And then to place yourself in it through some fictional proxy. So some of it just might be the fantasy of what *it's like* to BE a celebrity. Walk in his/her shoes. Get the attention, the goodies, think his/her thoughts. Write in the "down side" of celebrity and claim greater "accuracy" while still getting the fantasy.

Re: Struggling with it myself..

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think you are right...it does have a lot to do with control. Particularly when you are lusting after or desiring this object and can't have it - it's this carrot forever out of reache. In a rock concert it's a carrot that looks deceptively close and if you get next to the stage you can grab it. And most likely get kicked for your trouble. The frustration that sets in as a result, requires an outlet.

Stalking is ultimately an exercise in frustration if you can't control the life of your "quarry". Sitting back and just writing stories with as many real details as possible gives a much higher level of control.

True. And the writing side is harmless. After all, whose reading it? But you and a few other fans. But...there are a few fans out there who are convinced that they actually have relationships with these actors. Some of them organize these conventions. A lot of them are stalkers and also write or read fic.

I can't help but wonder if they are enabled by the fic writing, which increases their obsession? And of course with the internet, you get other people egging you on and supporting the obession...so it escalates. Some obsessions are relatively harmless, writing BTVS/ATS fanfic, collecting DVD's - nothing wrong there, and let's face it there's something in our nature that just leads us to it. Not sure what it is - but all human beings have that obsessive/compulsive urge.

I've seen several different types of RP fics online and in my life:

1. The fantasy fic - where the writer is involved with the celebrity on some level. (This most of us do in our own heads if we're honest. I mean who hasn't daydreamed about dancing with Carey Grant or having hot sex with the hot new movie star?)
2. The fic that imagines what it would be like to be this person - which ponygirl points out was seen in both Joyce Carol Oats Blonde (Marilyn Monroe) and in Being John Malvovich - where people literally find a way to become John Malvovich. (The best scene in the movie is when John Malvovich goes through the rabbit hole and becomes his persona.) We all do this as well - trying on someone else's shoes as it were.
3. The fic that manipulates the histories of the personalities and their images to tell a story which really has nothing to do with them. This is weird. It's almost like that madlib game - where you put in your name and your personal history and it spits out this bizarre tale. I'm not sure how to wrap my mind around this last one. In a sense it is wildly creative and a way to break writers block. Yet it's also lazy writing - because you are skipping around character description or developing a character by relying on histories and names given to you. OTOH - as writers don't we take histories, experiences, and things we hear and meld them into a new character? The only difference is we usually clarify that it is a fictional character and not based on anyone living or dead. (There's a reason for that disclaimer - it protects you from defamation lawsuits).

The film Being John Malvovich comments on this type of RP fic/celebrity fic. John Cusak's character in the film is a puppeteer who tells stories - he gets inside Malvovich and instead of just going along for the sensory ride, he takes over Malvovich's body and manipulates that body like a life-size doll to tell the story he wants to tell and live the life he wants to live.

So is writing about people and ourselves our way of attempting to control some portion of our lives? And where do we draw the line as writers on what we decide to write about? Is there an ethical line that needs to be drawn here? Should we have the right to write anything we please?

Re: Struggling with it myself..

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

It's not so much about controlling our own life as imagining we have control over someone else's life. Getting what you want from them in some sense--which is interaction or a relationship of some sort with this person who otherwise would be inaccessible to you.

I saw "Being John Malkovich" and I found that movie a very interesting variation on all of this. Most particularly because John Malkovich was in the movie and so letting himself be objectified as a way of making a statement ABOUT celebrity objectification.

Some people wanted to live his life-treat him like a puppet that could let them live out another more glamorous existence. Some people just wanted to see through another person's eyes, no matter who it was. I found it interesting that some people wanted to meet him in real life while he was posessed by somebody else, somebody they knew. That would make meeting a celebrity and interacting with them a lot safer--the person uses the celebrity's body like a puppetier would while you are using it as a sexual object.

Re: Struggling with it myself..

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Most particularly because John Malkovich was in the movie and so letting himself be objectified as a way of making a statement ABOUT celebrity objectification.

That's the interesting thing. In some respects, the celebrity appears to be letting themselves be objectified. Partly because they have no choice - if you are a tv star, you sign a contract and the contract states you are willing to do whatever is neccessary to convey the story. And to promote that story and show. Unless you have a savvy entertainment attorney who puts protective clauses in there - you are pretty much at the mercy of your contract. And actors are treated as "meat" in Hollywood. Marsters in several interviews has commented on it - how he didn't realize he'd feel like a piece of meat, an object. In theater that doesn't happen and that was the world he came from.
There - when you appear nude on stage - very few people can see it. And if they do, it's brief, and
you are protected by other performers. On film? Not so much. The camera picks up more details. Other actors aren't as nice. And camermen can be nasty.
Then of course you have a different breed of viewer/audience - a broader one. Who may just see you as meat. Plus for film - many of these actors are chosen based on looks solely. They become objects. Now some of them decide to market that image - get as much money as possible for how they look - by posing in Playboy or Playgirl, etc. Others put in clauses - "no nudity" and only a few appearances. So is the actor responsible for the part he or she plays in the objectifying? Not sure.
John Malvoich (and I can't spell the guy's last name for the life of me) seems to be asking this question as well.

It's not so much about controlling our own life as imagining we have control over someone else's life.

I agree. But by imagining we have control over someone else's life doesn't that in a way increase our own feeling of control over our own? We get to play God as writers. And it's fun playing god - we can do what we want in our universes. If we are angry at someone - we punish them. If we love them -we reward them. Things we can't necessarily do in real life - particularly if that person is outside our reach.