The other day, I was with a group of friends chatting about this
and that when the names Sandra Bullock and Julia Roberts came up. I’m not very
familiar with either name, although I know I’ve heard of Julia Roberts in
connection with films. I also know from the conversation that both are
celebrities.
I was conscious not being part of the conversation, which
wasn’t long enough to matter anyway but for some reason those two names stuck
in my mind.
I was reminded of the time we were returning from the
Alsace this summer. We stayed overnight in Laon and the hotel reception area had a huge TV on
the wall showing that cookery celeb with a face full of creases. His name escapes
me and I’m not going to look him up, but just the sight of him triggered a passing
whiff of gloom after a most enjoyable holiday.
What is it about celebrity culture? Why is it such a
turn-off for some of us? We’d seen nothing of it in the Alsace but the first TV
we come across and that’s it. Ignorance is bliss they say – I’m sure there is
something in that.
It also highlights the gulf between TV and the internet. I use
the internet for hours on end without a single celebrity spoiling the
atmosphere. For me, it makes a difference and I’ve reached the end of this post
without having to know who Sandra Bullock might be.
To my mind it’s a minor gain.
Should anyone enlighten you, presumably your response will be that of Sherlock Holmes when informed about the theory of Copernicus: "Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it."
ReplyDeleteYou're right, the cult of celebrity has long since passed the limits of reason, aided and abetted by immense commercial interests; I suppose it repels those who recognize and intensely dislike the idea of such blatant media manipulation.
It's a turn off for me because I recognise a 'bread and circuses' senario when I see it.
ReplyDeleteI don't know either Mr H!
ReplyDeleteAnything which relies on these ridiculous slebs is just a turn-off for me, as I normally operate in the real world, unless I'm outside a bottle of red, in which case, I'm not sure where I'm operating until I wake up...
Macheath, you put it in a nutshell, which is why I posted about 'twonks' a while back...
ReplyDeleteAKH, whilst being pretty much with you in being against 'celebrity culture', I think you are a bit off target on these two.
ReplyDeleteJulia Roberts and Sandra Bullock are both world-famous film stars. Both featured in their first film in 1987. Julia Roberts has appeared in 45 films and became famous in 1990 (Pretty Woman); she was THE female film star of the 1990s. Sandra Bullock has made 41 films and became somewhat famous in 1993 (Demolition Man); she is THE female film star of the 2010s. [These views are, of course, just my acceptance of 'public opinion'. Many, but not all, of their films are just 'entertainment' of the simpler popular kind - which makes the films good business - and these stars good businesswomen. Bullock is also a film producer.]
These two do look to have worked hard and long for their fame (and money), though they were/are undoubtedly helped by good looks.
There are many 'celebrities' who are much more deserving of criticism - having done much less of any merit (artistic or otherwise).
Best regards
Does she play for Everton Ladies team?
ReplyDeleteMac - yes it's the dreary manipulation that grates.
ReplyDeleteWoodsy - I agree - what's more there are too many clowns.
Scrobs - I intend to be outside a bottle of red quite soon.
Nigel - there is no specific criticism of these two. For me they are merely vague shapes in the celebrity wallpaper - I watch very few films.
Demetrius - the one who can't do throw-ins?
While I agree that minimizing one's exposure to "celebrity" is a good idea, I would recommend that you do an image search for a young Sandra Bullock.
ReplyDeleteShe was "pretty easy on the eyes" as we say here in the flyover parts of the US.
John - she was, but still a celeb and however good-looking there is something not quite wholesome about celebs.
ReplyDelete