Maybe It's Just Me...

...But I'm really tired of today's celebrities. (Please note that I use the term "celebrities," not "stars." I refuse to refer to today's celebrities as stars.)

A rant is coming. You've been warned.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, when I'm not busy at work, I read the news online. I don't dig very far into the sites (because then you get stories that are so old that they're no longer relevant or photo montages of ugly animals-- and some of them were really ugly), so you can imagine my reaction when I saw a story about how celebrities get away with-- and get publicity that increases their marketability from-- bad behavior on the ABC website. There was also a link from that story to a piece about how actors can't pull in audiences based on who they are alone. (Links to both stories can be found at the bottom of this post.)

Neither of those really qualify as top story material in my mind, but, since I had the time, I read them both anyway.

In regard to the bad behavior story, I have to say that famous people DO get away with things. But, so do "normal" people, in some instances. The difference is that famous people use it as fodder-- their bad actions become a springboard to skyrocketing sales.

So, really, the problem isn't so much that celebs aren't held accountable. The problem is that the public, in a way that it may or may not intend, celebrates a famous name that forces its way into the news, regardless of how it gets there. According to that story, there is only one crime from which an actor cannot flourish after committing-- only one that will kill a career: murder.

Wow. Are people really that numb to the gravity of some offences? Doesn't bode well for the future, does it?

I think the solution to this would be to avoid publicizing the trespasses of celebrities-- if people don't know about it, they can't talk about it. That would destroy the buzz normally created by trouble with the law.

That can't work, of course, because people are far too interested in celebrities' every move. So much so that celebs now sell tabloids more easily than they do movies.

Which brings me to the second story.

George Clooney was the main subject of the second story. His latest movie, Leatherheads (which I didn't see), didn't do as well in the box office "as it should have." Clooney starred in, directed and oversaw the writing for this movie.

And, God knows, if Clooney's star power can't sell a movie, no actor's can.

The story continues, saying that it takes a group of celebrities to sell a movie on "star power." They cite the movie Oceans 11. (Which I didn't see... do you see a trend?) That movie had "half a dozen" big-name celebrities in its cast and made quite an amount of money. I personally can't judge if it was just name power or if it was actually a worthwhile movie, and I don't think the folks writing the article were trying to say it sucked; they were just trying to make a point. I don't know if they did.

To me, the most accurate part of the story was the title, which stated "Stars: They Ain't What They Used To Be."

Um...duh.

Let's face it-- the majority of the actors and actress in movies today are less artists than eye candy. Before everyone gets on my case, I said the MAJORITY, not all. And this is the opinion of a snob-- a theatre fanatic and a classic movie lover. I'm biased: I'll admit it.

But, really, would it be too much to ask to see a movie that is truly art? Something with a real plot and visual appeal?

And I really want to see an ugly actress in a leading role. Or maybe a pretty actress who's not afraid of looking ugly. I mean, think Bette Davis's hideous make-up in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?.

So I've given you a lot of words today. I guess what I clumsily tried to say in all of this is that I miss actors and actresses whose main concern wasn't publicity and numbers.

I want actors that care about the art of acting.

Is that such a bad thing?


http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=5058678&page=1

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4606752&page=1