Comments on: President Paris, Vice President Tinkerbell

By: Giulianna Lamanna

Giulianna Lamanna — Mon, 02 May 2005 04:23:31 +0000

Thanks, Jason. Ah’m no good wif deh wordin’ an’ deh s’plainin’ an’ deh whatnot.

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Mon, 02 May 2005 01:04:13 +0000

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.

By: Mike Godesky

Mike Godesky — Sun, 01 May 2005 21:58:53 +0000

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?

By: Giulianna Lamanna

Giulianna Lamanna — Sun, 01 May 2005 21:22:26 +0000

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.

By: Mike Godesky

Mike Godesky — Sun, 01 May 2005 02:05:59 +0000

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.

By: Chris Hardie

Chris Hardie — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:25:52 +0000

“I am a spoiled, rich, vacuous slut. That is all I am and all I will ever be.”

Dude, that’s what I used for my high school yearbook quote! How did you know?!