I'll be taking a trip down to Southern California this summer, and will probably be visiting Hollywood. But unlike last time -- since the Virgin Megastore closed down since my last visit -- I don't expect to tread any sidewalks that are adorned with the stars of the world-famous Hollywood Walk of Fame, since Amoeba Music is a block or two off that studded path (if I recall correctly). And frankly, it's just as well, since the Walk of Fame doesn't hold nearly the glamour and allure now that it used to.
Back in the good old days, you really had to be a celebrity of some importance to earn your very own star on the Walk of Fame. Now the only requirement seems to be paying the $25,000 sponsor fee. And having the right timing doesn't hurt either. Case in point: Shrek. Yes ... Shrek, for the love of crap. Never mind that he's an animated character that doesn't even exist in reality -- that line was crossed when Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny got their stars. What gets me about it is that, by coincidence (yeah, coincidence my ass), he got his star on the Walk just a couple of weeks ago ... yup, right before his latest movie hit the theatres!! Funny that, eh? Don't get me wrong, the first one or two "Shrek" movies were fun, so I have nothing against the ogre ... it's just that the whole situation just makes me want to crap my pants in frustration.
Is there something wrong with a candidate's contribution to entertainment, name recognition, and relative historical significance being used as factors to determine their worthiness to be given a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame? There are probably a good number of names on the Walk now that I wouldn't recognize -- but then, I can't know who everyone is, so that's not so troubling -- but the list of people who still haven't been given their rightful stars is downright disturbing. Is anyone else as shocked as I am that Woody Allen, Robert Redford, Clint Eastwood, Madonna, Dustin Hoffman, Sally Field, Diane Keaton, Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, Jane Fonda, Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, and Sean Connery all have yet to be so honored? Not to mention -- yes, here it comes -- my own personal pet peeve on that left-outs list: "Weird Al" Yankovic.
Laugh if you will, but think about it: "Weird Al" Yankovic has been making people laugh in a family-friendly way for over 25 years, and he's made his mark not only on music, but also on film (the hilarious "UHF") and television (the short-lived but adorable Saturday morning series "The Weird Al Show") ... plus there's the simple fact that he's known the world over, not just by name but also by his face. This is made all the more aggravating considering that people like Britney Spears, Sean (whatever variation of "Diddy" he's using this week) Combs, and Judge Judy have been given stars long before they deserve them. All I can figure is that a) there must be a lot of free space on the Walk of Fame sidewalks, and b) the city must really need the money from all those sponsorship fees.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
You're Not a Celebrity, Get the F**k Out of Here
Who's Brett Favre? He's an athlete. Who's Lily Allen? She's a musician. Who's Stephen King? Right, he's a writer. How about Kyra Sedgwick? Yup, an actress. Who's Kim Kardashian? Oh, she's a ... well ... aw, crap, what is she? Oh, and Perez Hilton? Uh, yeah, he's ... hmmm.... By now I'm assuming you see where this is going, and what my peeve is today.
You see, there's a difference between the first four people I named, and the last two. The former are celebrities, and the latter are not. Twenty-First-Century America may think otherwise, but as far as I'm concerned, in order to be classified as a "celebrity", you have to have an actual talent -- some skill that earns you notoriety in some (preferably positive) way. At least, that's what I was brought up to believe: you have to have some kind of aptitude in order to earn the attention and adoration of the public. The fact that all these so-called "personalities" are getting so much attention can only mean that America's standards have gone way, way, WAY downhill in recent years.
Kicking or throwing a ball, singing and playing an instrument, writing enthralling prose, and giving an engaging dramatic performance are skills. Sashaying around like it's a privilege for other people just to lay eyes on you, being self-absorbed as though you're God's gift to the world, and buying expensive shit that you don't even need are not skills ... and neither is taking paparazzi photos (not even your own, but other people's, for cripe's sake!) and scrawling clumsy doodles and dumb-ass remarks on them in white pixels with knockoff PhotoShop software. No, I don't know Perez Hilton at all, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's a perfectly nice guy underneath ... my only problem with him is that he hasn't earned all the damned attention he's been showered with. (The fact that he's a gossip has a lot to do with it ... I consider gossips to be neck-and-neck on the integrity scale with TV evangelists.)
Some people who have become these non-specific pop-culture "personalities" actually gained their notoriety earlier in their lives in other ways -- pro athletes being the most obvious example -- and I have no problems with that at all, because their core following is based on that previously excelled-at talent. But I hate when these upstart, attention-grubbing, no-talent nincompoops that are the subject of my ire use their dubiously-achieved 15 minutes of fame to get a foothold into an entertainment arena that honestly talented people have been struggling to make it in for years. (What were they smoking when they let Paris Hilton record an album?) The only saving grace in all this is the short attention spans of the American public, which result in the vast majority of these crossover attempts being met with a deafening lack of interest. (How many schmucks from "Survivor", "Big Brother", ad nauseam, have written "memoirs" that schmuck publishers actually thought would sell?)
I guess one thing -- amongst many, believe me -- that we can blame for this "celebrit-itis", as I like to call it, is how the lines between media are blurring, or in some cases all but disappearing: TV, radio, the Internet, music, and movies all used to be firmly separate domains, but it's getting increasingly difficult to tell them apart as they continue to merge into a single, all-encompassing thing. And, unfortunately, as media continues on this kind of controlled collision course, I fear that we'll continue to hear more and more about all these somebodies that I'd rather hear less and less about.
You see, there's a difference between the first four people I named, and the last two. The former are celebrities, and the latter are not. Twenty-First-Century America may think otherwise, but as far as I'm concerned, in order to be classified as a "celebrity", you have to have an actual talent -- some skill that earns you notoriety in some (preferably positive) way. At least, that's what I was brought up to believe: you have to have some kind of aptitude in order to earn the attention and adoration of the public. The fact that all these so-called "personalities" are getting so much attention can only mean that America's standards have gone way, way, WAY downhill in recent years.
Kicking or throwing a ball, singing and playing an instrument, writing enthralling prose, and giving an engaging dramatic performance are skills. Sashaying around like it's a privilege for other people just to lay eyes on you, being self-absorbed as though you're God's gift to the world, and buying expensive shit that you don't even need are not skills ... and neither is taking paparazzi photos (not even your own, but other people's, for cripe's sake!) and scrawling clumsy doodles and dumb-ass remarks on them in white pixels with knockoff PhotoShop software. No, I don't know Perez Hilton at all, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's a perfectly nice guy underneath ... my only problem with him is that he hasn't earned all the damned attention he's been showered with. (The fact that he's a gossip has a lot to do with it ... I consider gossips to be neck-and-neck on the integrity scale with TV evangelists.)
Some people who have become these non-specific pop-culture "personalities" actually gained their notoriety earlier in their lives in other ways -- pro athletes being the most obvious example -- and I have no problems with that at all, because their core following is based on that previously excelled-at talent. But I hate when these upstart, attention-grubbing, no-talent nincompoops that are the subject of my ire use their dubiously-achieved 15 minutes of fame to get a foothold into an entertainment arena that honestly talented people have been struggling to make it in for years. (What were they smoking when they let Paris Hilton record an album?) The only saving grace in all this is the short attention spans of the American public, which result in the vast majority of these crossover attempts being met with a deafening lack of interest. (How many schmucks from "Survivor", "Big Brother", ad nauseam, have written "memoirs" that schmuck publishers actually thought would sell?)
I guess one thing -- amongst many, believe me -- that we can blame for this "celebrit-itis", as I like to call it, is how the lines between media are blurring, or in some cases all but disappearing: TV, radio, the Internet, music, and movies all used to be firmly separate domains, but it's getting increasingly difficult to tell them apart as they continue to merge into a single, all-encompassing thing. And, unfortunately, as media continues on this kind of controlled collision course, I fear that we'll continue to hear more and more about all these somebodies that I'd rather hear less and less about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)