Celebrity Lust
I have tried to get my mind around the subject, tried to understand just exactly what it is that so enraptures people about celebrities. We can broaden that category to include royalty and people of immense wealth as well as people with notorious reputations for one thing or another, characters who by the very nature of their sometimes publicly-outrageous behaviour are reported upon in the media time and again and who, therefore, become celebrities. And let us not overlook talk-show hosts, and above all, Hollywood actors (and actresses although I'm aware that the politically-correct term is "actors" denoting either gender).What is it about peoples' lives that they are so dissatisfied with, that huge gaping hole of boredom, ennui, dreams never realized that will compel them to seek out scandals, juicy bits of information about people they do not personally know, but whom they admire and whom they aspire to emulate simply because they are celebrities of one type or another?
I know they're there, otherwise why would so many people consistently utilize the Google search engine to discover salivatingly-new tidbits about their much-admired celebrities? I know they do this because my local newspaper runs regular articles about these Google searches, and then goes even further, publishing all manner of truly stupid drek about celebrities that surely no one with half a brain could give credence to, let alone find interesting.
I know they're there, because I have neighbours and acquaintances whose conversations are replete with references to the latest news about celebrities. These people know very little about world affairs, appear to have no interest whatever in what is happening in their local communities but they do insist on seeking their very specific type of gratification revolving around celebrity happenings.
Celebrities bank their notoriety, by producing designs and products which simply replicate already-available consumer-ready items but since their illustrious names are attached to these "unique" products the adoring consuming public is quick to enable these celebrities to capitalize upon their fame by enriching themselves even further.
Want to enter a contest? All the rules are neatly laid out, and anyone can enter. After all, there's an object of one kind or another to the exercise. Enter the contest, qualify and respond accurately and you can win a one-on-one lunch with a famous personality. The dream of a lifetime, fulfilled.
Think you should make a donation to a worthwhile cause, a charity whose focus and function it is to make the world a better place for children, the underprivileged, medical science, those afflicted with horrendous diseases, people living in far-off lands where natural disasters have deprived them of everything they own, along with their livelihoods? Check out the celebrity endorsements. That should enlighten you as to which such charity to send your hard-earned dollars to.
And how about all those wealthy celebrities who shill for various charities of their choice, and use their perceived prominence in popular celebrity circles to entice prospective donors to give to the charity of their choice? Have they themselves offered donations of their own acquired wealth? Can their relationship with the charity of their choice be seen as an offering of personal generosity, or do they gain by basking in the public acclaim that comes their way as a result of their affiliation with the charity and in so doing increase the level of their celebrity? Priceless.
In today's newspaper I see two large items given generous coverage. One, that Jimmy Carter's oldest son has handily won the nomination for a Democratic seat in Nevada. What makes this notable is that this man is the son of someone who attained celebrity as a former President of the United States (but who, notably and with great humility, went on to endorse and work actively with Habitat for Humanity, a true exception to the rule I'm railing against).
Another is that Queen Elizabeth II's granddaughter Zara Phillips, following in the showjumping tradition both her mother and father established, has become a riding champion. The fact that she has at her disposal some ten thoroughbreds each of which costs $40,000 per annum to house and care for, let alone the enormous costs associated with competitive horsemanship is beside the point. The Queen has relaxed a long-standing rule and permitted her granddaughter to receive commercial endorsements, which come in thick and heavy, given her lineage.
Wait, I'm not finished. In an obscure little village in Malawi, named Mphandula, Madonna, the celebrity- philanthropist has announced plans to raise at least $3 million U.S. for programs to support the nearly one million children in Malawi who have lost parents to AIDS. Some of the projected charitable funds have already been earmarked to build a feeding and education centre for orphans from this village. I think that's wonderful, truly, but exactly why is it that Madonna, a prima donna celebrity to be sure, hasn't used any of her own fortune to establish this fund? Thus, by her example (not through her exhortations) encouraging others to do likewise?
Why does generosity have to be accompanied by acclaim? After all, how much money is enough? If people are fortunate enough to have millions, hundreds of millions, billions of dollars at their personal disposal, what is a few million or a few hundred million dollars to them but spare change? Why doesn't true altruism come into play where people with far more wealth than they could conceivably count fund charitable enterprises without fanfare?
Bill and Melinda Gates have established charitable enterprises of a type the world badly needs. Why are they celebrated for doing this? Haven't they an obligation as human beings to do just that? When someone of the popular stature (read celebrity) of former U.S. President Bill Clinton, along with Hollywood actor Richard Gere attend an AIDS conference in Toronto, why does everyone swoon over their presence, while the matter at hand, a devastating disease that is sweeping Africa, India and other such countries of the Third World takes second place?
Hey people, wake up and get a life.
posted by Pieface @ Thursday, August 17, 2006
<< Home