President Paris, Vice President Tinkerbell
by Giulianna LamannaSo. The film version of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy came out in American theaters today. Based on a number of negative reviews I’ve read of it, coupled by clips I’ve seen of it, I’ve decided not to see it. Or at least not pay money to see it. I believe my initial reaction to M.J. Simpson’s infamous review was part sadness, part utter lack of surprise. So I decided not to see the movie and went on to think about more interesting things.
Compare that with what my reaction would have been several years ago. First of all, I would have been following the film’s development closely, melodramatically complaining about every potential misstep from Marvin’s design to Mos Def’s Jackie-O-style sunglasses. I’d have seen it the day it came out, just to be certain that it was every bit as bad as I thought it would be. Then I’d probably write a few angry letters to Disney, local movie theaters, and the producers. I’d urge all Douglas Adams fans to boycott the film. In short, I’d display all the passion and energy of a political protester without anything even mildly important to protest.
Originally, I thought this was because I’d grown up. The usual cliché is that youthful energy is spent on celebrities when one is in her teens, on politics when one is in college, and gradually fizzles out into apathy as one grows older. The idea that teens would get excited about anything involving celebrities was the inspiration behind the 2004 election’s myriad of painfully uncool campaigns designed to appeal to the 18-to-24 demographic, which ranged from patronizing (PunkVoter.com) to flat-out nonsensical (Puff Daddy’s - I’m sorry, P.Diddy’s - Vote or Die).
But it’s not just teens that care more about entertainment than reality; it’s everyone. People old enough to be my parents routinely display a disturbing level of interest in Jennifer Lopez (I’m sorry, J.Lo) and Ben Affleck, Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt, and any other Jennifer that’s breaking up with her boyfriend this week. While the Bush administration literally got away with murder (and mass murder, at that), Ashlee Simpson was crucified for lip-syncing. (Does anyone seriously want to hear what a pop singer sounds like without computers?) Hell, this blog entry will probably generate more hits than Anthropik has ever had, just because it contains a bunch of celebrity names. (Speaking of which: Barbra Streisand, Barbara Walters, Ben Kingsley, Ben Stiller, Beyonce Knowles, Billy Bob Thornton, Billy Corgan, Billy Crystal, Bono, Brendan Fraser, Britney Spears, Brittany Murphy, Bruce Boxleitner, Bruce Willis, and that’s just the ‘B’s, bizatch.)
Election year after election year, intellectuals whine about America’s political apathy. Their usual explanation is that we’re too A.D.D. (that’s right, it’s an adjective) to concern ourselves with anything that isn’t shiny. However, I doubt that we’d care any more if we replaced all politicians with celebrities. (The world probably wouldn’t be any worse off, either.) It’s not that politics are boring; it’s just that trying to change the system is so mind-bogglingly frustrating that most people burn out before they’ve graduated college. I cite the example of Derrick Jensen, who after a lifetime of political activism has concluded that the only way to get a damn thing accomplished is to blow shit up. When more and more people are getting cancer and asthma because corrupt politicians are allowing obscenely rich businessmen to pollute any ecosystem they please, who wouldn’t rather rail against Avril Lavigne’s poseur-punk status? We won’t be able to do any harm to celebrities by complaining about their faults, but at least they can’t do any harm to us, either.
This, I’m convinced, is the engine behind the fame of people such as Paris Hilton. No one’s under any illusions as to her acting talent, or even her beauty when she isn’t smothered under hundreds of pounds of makeup. She occasionally makes feeble attempts at acting or singing, but that’s not why she’s famous and everyone knows it. People love Paris because she’s so refreshingly shallow. There’s nothing for her to hide, not even her sex life. While pop stars and actresses at least pretend to fulfill some greater purpose than sex symbols, Paris is empty of any thoughts of such pretension - empty of seemingly any thoughts at all. While politicians ooze slime as they smile for the cameras and kiss babies and spout meaningless rhetoric, Paris Hilton stands above them all, scantily clad as always, proclaiming, “I am a spoiled, rich, vacuous slut. That is all I am and all I will ever be.”
God bless her.
Dude, that’s what I used for my high school yearbook quote! How did you know?!
Comment by Chris Hardie — 29 April 2005 @ 3:25 PM
I would have to disagree with your assessment. Americans aren’t fascinated by celebrities because it’s easier or because those celebrities are shallow. Americans are fascinated by celebrities for the same reason that the English are fascinated by the monarchy. Those people are representations of our idealized selves. They live the lives we all dream of living. It’s strange that America, not having an official institution with all of the pomp and circumstance of the British monarchy, has bestowed that role onto Hollywood. And Hollywood celebrities are even more capable of acting out our fantasies than the monarchy. In the movies people are always cooler, smarter, stronger, faster, and sexier. Hell, even a Hollywood celebrity’s normal life looks like a fairy tale when compared to the life of your ordinary person. We identify with these people because they show us ourselves as we would like to be–and so we have an interest in seeing how our ideal selves live.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 30 April 2005 @ 9:05 PM
I think you may have misread my post. I was pointing out why Americans choose entertainers to act out their fantasies *rather than* politicians. As you said, in England, the monarchy fills that role (although entertainers are also worshipped). There’s no reason why people shouldn’t also idealize politicians - except for the fact that they’re sleazy liars who destroy earth and country alike.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 1 May 2005 @ 4:22 PM
There’s no reason that they would choose politicians in the first place. Politicians don’t really typify most people’s ideal selves except perhaps in the amount of money that they make. But there’s a lot more to a person’s ideal self than money. Unless you have a particularly charismatic candidate like John F. Kennedy, a politician just isn’t going to cut it. The British royal family became the representation for this idea because of the fairy tale imagery surrounding them, not because of any kind of political power–as is evident from the fact that people still obsess over the royal family even now that they have no political power.
The problem is that you seem to be citing people’s frustration with being unable to bring about change as the reason for their obsession with celebrities. But an inability to change things is a reason to stop watching the news. It’s not a reason to start taking an interest in who Tom Cruise is dating. For that you need some other driving force. Simply saying that it’s easier doesn’t really work. There are lots of things that are easier. Take up a hobby. Read a book. Whatever. Hell, I can find things to do with my energy that are even easier than following the personal life of my favorite celebrity. And saying that it’s because they’re shallow doesn’t work either, because if there’s nothing to the person then why would people pay any attention to her at all?
Comment by Mike Godesky — 1 May 2005 @ 4:58 PM
I think Giuli was using the popularity of celebrities as more of a rhetorical device, and that her point was more about the frustration of having so little influence. We’re told it’s a democracy and that we have influence, and yet, time after time, that influence proves futile. I think Giuli was trying to highlight that by contrasting it to our adoration of celebrities, where at least we know we have no influence. I don’t think she was suggesting that was why we adore them so. On that score, your idea carries a lot more water.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 May 2005 @ 8:04 PM
Thanks, Jason. Ah’m no good wif deh wordin’ an’ deh s’plainin’ an’ deh whatnot.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 1 May 2005 @ 11:23 PM