 |
|||
|
|
|
 What Price Hollywood?Posted on Feb 9, 2009
By Chris Hedges I visited the Hollywood Forever Cemetery in Los Angeles a few days ago. It is advertised as “the final resting place to more of Hollywood’s founders and stars than anywhere else on Earth.” The 60-acre cemetery holds the remains of 135 Hollywood luminaries, including Rudolph Valentino, Tyrone Power, Cecil B. DeMille, Douglas Fairbanks, Nelson Eddy, Peter Lorre, Mel Blanc and John Huston. We all have gods, Martin Luther said, it is just a question of which ones. And in American society, our gods are often celebrities. Religious belief and practice are commonly transferred to the adoration of celebrities. Our celebrity culture builds reliquaries and shrines to celebrities the way Romans built them for divine emperors, ancestors and household gods. We are a de facto polytheistic society. We engage in shamanism. Relics of celebrities, like relics of the dead among ancestor cults in Africa, Asia or the medieval Catholic Church, are coveted as magical talismans. Hollywood Forever is next to Paramount Studios. The massive white HOLLYWOOD letters on the hillside tower above the tombs and Italian Renaissance-inspired marble buildings that hold rows of crypts. Maps with the locations of stars’ graves, along with a glossy booklet of brief star biographies, are handed out at the gate. Tourists are promised visits with dead stars, who are referred to as “residents.” The cemetery, which has huge marble monuments to the wealthy and the powerful, is divided into sections with names like “Garden of Eternal Love” and “Garden of Legends.” It has two massive marble mausoleums, including the Cathedral Mausoleum, with 6,000 crypts—the largest mausoleum in the world when it was built in the 1930s. Most of the celebrities, however, have simple bronze plaques that seem to indicate a yearning for the anonymity denied to them in life. The cemetery, established in 1899 and called Hollywood Memorial Park, fell into disrepair and neglect some eight or nine decades after it was opened. By the 1990s, some families, including relatives of the makeup artist Max Factor, paid to have their loved ones removed from the grounds. By April 1996, the property was bankrupt. The cemetery was months away from being condemned. It was bought by Tyler Cassidy and his brother Brent, who renamed it Hollywood Forever Cemetery and began a marketing campaign around its celebrity “residents.” The brothers established the “Forever Network,” in which the noncelebrity departed could, at least in death, be the stars of their own home movies. The cemetery Web site archives the video tributes. “Families, young and old, are starting their LifeStories now, and adding to them as the years pass,” the cemetery’s brochure states. “What this means—having our images, voices, and videos available for future generations—has deep importance, both sociologically and for fully celebrating life.” At funerals these specially produced tributes, which often include highlights from home videos, are shown on screens next to the caskets of the deceased. The cemetery’s business is booming. It costs a lot to be buried near a celebrity. Hugh Hefner reportedly paid $85,000 to reserve the crypt next to Marilyn Monroe at Los Angeles’ Westwood Village Memorial Park Ceremony. The “prestige service” offered by Hollywood Forever runs $5,400. Jay Boileau, the executive vice president of the cemetery, conceded that getting a crypt near Valentino costs even more, although he said he did not have the price list with him. “We have sold most of them,” he said of the crypts near Valentino. “Visits to his crypt are unique. Every year we hold a memorial service for him on the day he passed away. He was the first true sex symbol. Ten thousand people came to his funeral. He was the first Brad Pitt. He was the first true superstar in film and the greatest screen lover.” Advertisement Buses wind their way through the Hollywood Hills so tourists can gawk at the walls that barricade the homes of the famous. The celebrity interview or profile, pioneered on television by Barbara Walters and now a ubiquitous part of the news and entertainment industry, gives us the illusion that we are intimately related to celebrities as well as the characters they portray. In celebrity culture, we seek to validate ourselves through these imaginary relationships with celebrities. Real life, our own life, is viewed next to the lives of celebrities as inadequate and inauthentic. Celebrities are portrayed as idealized forms of ourselves. It is we, in perverse irony, who are never fully actualized in a celebrity culture.
1
2
NEXT PAGE >>>
The World As It Is:Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress
 Previous item: The Real Obama Next item: Supreme Sexism CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
Acts of Love
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
by Chris Hedges
Newsletter 
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Sepharad, February 12, 2009 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
M.B.S.S.—I don’t know what her face looked like as I was heading in opposite direction, but it may not have changed at all. She’s a 40ish blonde I’ve only seen in gray power suits; probably has some high-powered job in the city (SF) that requires non-reactive demeanor. Shortly after she moved in a year ago, she once confronted my husband, also riding along the road, saying that the land across the road from her house was also hers as far as the eye can see. He said he didn’t have to argue as a big waterdistrict truck happened to appear and turned in toward their ponds as is routine, but that being caught telling a lie didn’t disturb her in the least. She just turned around and walked back up the huge concrete drive.
Am envious of your “john muirs” if they really are. We had a county supervisor who acted like and even voted as if he were John Muir reincarnate, but the minute he retired he went to work as a lobbyist to the development commission for any development group with the money to buy him.
Folktruther, agreeing with you on anything is not humorous, just unlikely enough to be worthy of note.
Report thisBy M.B.S.S., February 12, 2009 at 11:33 am Link to this comment
great story. i can imagine her face after trying to sic her dogs on you to no avail….
Report thisBy Sepharad, February 11, 2009 at 10:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
M.B.S.S. - Town we are closest to is Forestville, about a mile north. Hate to think of all the time we’ve spent in town meetings trying—futilely—to keep people from developing every inch of orchard, meadow, woods. Then there’s the Laguna between Santa Rosa and Sebastopol, which is another tooth-and-nail struggle even though it FLOODS, completely covered, 10-15’ every year. And they are still trying to get permission to develop it.
We’ve been wondering if we could sell out and relocate central coast, but probably pointless if you guys are having the same problem.
A few months ago, was taking a work break on a pretty fall day riding my horse down a county-maintained dirt-gravel road and a lady runs out of her new McMansion, stands there in the driveway on top of a big oil spot telling me I have to leave lest my horse poop in front her her property. I said no, this is water district land, and even if she did it doesn’t have the half-life of that spot you’re standing on. I’m not usually a smart-ass but it was really irritating. She turned two big mastiffs out saying “Sic!” Horse is used to dogs and likes to chase them so that didn’t work, but she was still yelling at them and us so I whistled them up and they came running with us. We stayed out a couple hours then I brought them back—had contemplated keeeping them overnight but decided that would be crossing the line from mischief to mean.
Husband working out of house in Las Cruces for a few months for a different riding place and for my health—RA doesn’t do well in rainy winters—so we’re here thru March with our two horses. Completely different here, people like horses, wave at you and in general are quite friendly, even drive politely. But developing is just as big. We’re a bit out of town in open desert but there are suburban tracts all around—nice spacing now, but all those empty lots and arroyos aren’t going to stay empty for long. Crazy world. Horses are sane and transmit some of that to their riders. Part of their charm.
Report thisBy Virginia777, February 11, 2009 at 6:22 pm Link to this comment
One point Chris Hedges is missing here is that the Stars are victims themselves.
Hollywood’s most precious commodity, actors, are literally hunted day and night by the Paparazzi who have the law on THEIR side.
They are beat up by the press on a regular basis and have every foible and extra pound documented by worldwide press.
A huge part of “celebrity culture” is pure viciousness.
Report thisBy M.B.S.S., February 11, 2009 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment
sepharad: “saved by the bell,” is a cheesy, early 90’s teen sitcom, which enjoys a sort of cult following.
im from the central coast of california myself. horse country here too. lots of beautiful rolling hills (with the rain they are green again) and near virgin beaches that are perfect for riding a horse. sometimes ill be down at the state park, and see folks going on the most sublime and medititatively fun looking rides upon the sun warmed sand. they are always in a good mood. hopefully the state budget spares my beloved local state parks.
the encroachment of Suburban Sprawl and Pro Development City Planners eats away at this community. we fight hard to conserve what we have here. luckily we have enough “john muirs” here to hold them at bay…for the time being. there is some
kind of overarching inevitablity to the whole process, but at the same time we have a politically active community, so there is hope.
its great to be conservative as long as you know what is worth holding on to.
Report thisBy Folktruther, February 11, 2009 at 11:46 am Link to this comment
You mean, Anarcissie, that the Caroline that was to be appointed senator was the Kennedy’s Little Caroline? My last image of her was when she was riding her little horsie. My, time really flies when you are having fun. I don’t watch TV so I don’t have a strong grasp of popular culture.
And you are right, I DID foget that Guilliani was America’s Mayor. you are just trying scare everyone with the thought that he might become president, aren’t you. But then Nixon did. Iherit’s kid is Mayan, maybe he would put in a Word for us. Assuming he does not want to take revenge for Ihherit calling in Rabbinical goons to whack off great chunks of his dick with a machete.
Sepharad, your assertion that we agree on Lenin and Trotsky is just another example of your rich sense of humor,isn’t it.
Report thisBy Sepharad, February 11, 2009 at 10:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Well, Folktruther, it may never happen again but for the moment we are in complete agreement re Lenin and Trotsky.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, February 11, 2009 at 10:24 am Link to this comment
I am pretty sure Giuliani will rise from the undead run for Senator or Governor. I believe Paterson received orders from Obama and the Clintons to select Gillibrand, rather than Paterson’s most natural choice, which would have been Andrew Cuomo, thus getting rid of a very possible rival for the governorship next year. Kennedy was, of course, a completely inappropriate choice, given that she, a private, mild-mannered New York City socialite, would have to fight for the seat against a hideous monster in just a year and a half, but the possibility of having an opportunity to shower us with endless images of little Caroline on her pony and recount endless Kennedy stories caused the media to foam at the mouth and babble. Now they are infuriated because Paterson quite properly gave them the back of his hand. The only problem was getting rid of Kennedy without seeming to unceremoniously dump her out of the wagon. This was done, I believe, by giving her just a touch of the lash of mainstream politics, after which she hastily withdrew.
Tasini is the anti-gun Democrat and if Gillibrand knows her business and if she has the backing I think she has, he will be crushed. Anti-gun politics has never done much for the Democrats outside of the soccer mom set, and New York State has many other constituencies. Giuliani cannot run to the left of Gillibrand, so I think she’s got him pinned, as they say in chess, not as in old-time high-school romance.
Thus Giuliani will go after good soldier Paterson instead.
You’re forgetting that Giuliani was “America’s Mayor.” It is true that everyone hates or fears him, but a lot of people like that in a leader. It got him elected Mayor of New York City twice. As for governor, if Pataki could be elected governor, anyone could be elected governor.
Winning the governorship in New York would give Giuliani a shot at the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. People unlucky enough to watch television would have to endure his ghastly visage croaking at them for another four years, or worse. Some people are famous for being ugly.
Of course, the Maya Long Count runs out on December 21, 2012, so maybe the universe will come to an end and we’ll be spared.
Report thisBy Folktruther, February 10, 2009 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment
M.B.S.S. you’re a bad influence on prole.
Report thisBy Folktruther, February 10, 2009 at 4:16 pm Link to this comment
Guliani isn’t featured much in the LA hollywood magazines, Anarcissie, so I don’t know how you can consider him a celeb. Acutally everyone who knows him hates him, those who don’t fear him, so its hard to know how he gets elected anyway.
Report this***
Lenin wasn’t vain, he just did his job. Trotsky however was. When he was given the military task of the Octoboer insurrection, which by that time was merely changing the sentries since everyone was disgusted with Kerensky for not stopping the war and getting bread to the people, he timed the uprising of the first socialist state for his birthday. He was an extemely talented writer and orator, but some of us hold it against him.
By Sepharad, February 10, 2009 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
M.B.S.S.—Who is “that dude save by the bell?”
You’re right, the celeb culture is growing too fast(unlike jobs), judging from the number of mags at the supermarket checkout lines, but it will only bother you if you look at it without understanding what it means, like gazing on Medea or turning your head to watch Sodom burn.
I’d add that entertainment—even the good kind—is just another spectator sport if you don’t make the effort to engage it like a book you’re reading, at the level of its meaning (or a metaphor, as George Edelman says). But it’s better when you are creating something yourself, or looking into the world as is while doing something that is as vital as breathing to your life. For me, that’s riding a horse with no destination but the ride itself and the little things I see in the process. Admittedly this is getting harder to do: even in rural Northern California where I live concrete is increasingly being poured though there are few people looking for houses, and fences going up all over to keep nothing in but people out, making just plain riding harder and harder to do. Husband, a lover of epic sagas and horse-rich histories of all kinds, wasn’t satisfied till he devised a description for what we do—postindustrial horsemanship. (It’s easier in the desert as long as you’re not too close to town and the military hasn’t snapped up all acreage up to the foot of the mountains for testing all manner of things.)
Report thisBy M.B.S.S., February 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment
You hear that, Elizabeth?! I’m coming to join you, honey!”
Report thisBy TAO Walker, February 10, 2009 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment
One of our tormentors’ oldest tricks is to put their “brand” on something that is just naturally going to happen anyway, and then take loud credit for it when it does. Their half-Human henchmen do the same damned thing….like the industrial capitalists’ve done with the inevitable elaboration of electro-mechanical gadgetry, f’r instance. And of course we’re all too familiar with the way the “money” mongers’ve CONvinced their Human livestock that absolutely nothing worthwhile is possible without piles of their poisonous “product.”
So here we have the ruling-elite and the “leadership” they sponsor trying to position their sorry selfs to both claim “ownership” of the organic “CHANGE! that’s coming,” in the form of our Mother Earth’s Purification Ceremony, and to try to “steer” it to their own exclusive advantage. Keep your eyes open, Sisters and Brothers, if you don’t want to miss a “global” prattfall by our wannabe owner/operators that’ll be the subject of hilarious stories around winter lodge-fires for hundreds of generations to-come.
Don’t worry, M.B.S.S., this “revolution” is going to be, ala Fred Sanford, “....the big one, Honey!”
HokaHey!
Report thisBy Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, February 10, 2009 at 2:49 pm Link to this comment
And now, A-Rod
I said three or four years ago that the guy is a juicer.
Next time he comes up to bat—if’n he does—take a good long look at his pyhsique. If that ain’t juice, nothin’is?
Celebs and stars all juice on one thing or another. You’re going along all comfy in your celebrity and then you realize some part of the real you is hanging out there for everyone to see. That scares you because you’ve never been the real you and you know no one will like you as you are. At least that’s what everyone in MSM, except Mr. Rogers has told you. You smell bad, you have a fat belly, too much hair on your legs, wear ugly, outdated clothes, drive junkheaps, drink inferior beer and have an ugly mate. So you juice.
Thank God for an afterlife. I just know I and everyone else will get it exactly right next time around. At the very least Jesus, like Mr. Rogers, will love me just as I am, without one plea, and I can just be me. Sammy Davis Jr. was just himself, so sang he.
Cyrena: George Bush was my hero and he let me down. I’m in therapy now trying to make it heroless. I envy you and anyone who has extra heros. I grew up on Superman, WonderWoman, Mighty Mouse, Spider Man and Flash Gordon. Then I found out they were imaginary. That killed me. I can no longer trust heroes. Thanks anyway.
P.S. I hope I’ve helped get to the truth.
Report thisBy M.B.S.S., February 10, 2009 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment
vanity yes
foolishness no
vanity is a requirement for any leadership. its never foolish, no matter your beliefs, to seed a revolution. revolutions are just rapid complete changes. rapid changes are catalysts for human development. we would stagnate without any revolutionaries.
Report thisBy KDelphi, February 10, 2009 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment
Anarcissie—I dont know. There is already an anti-gun Dem talking about running against the new Senator. Guilliani?? Do you REALLY think he’ll run?! Gaawd help us all!
I think that the MSM was hard on Paterson. I dont know whose orders he would be following, but, maybe the new Blue Dog would be easier to beat?
Report thisBy Anarcissie, February 10, 2009 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment
I think vanity and foolishness are almost absolute requirements for revolutionary leadership. No humble, sensible person would engage in such an enterprise. As I said, the one exception I can think of is George Washington. How he got into the business I can’t imagine, although I have read that in spite of his powers of self-discipline he barely controlled a violent temper. It is not hard to imagine that the fatuous administration of George III and his ministers provoked his monstrous wrath, it might be over some minor thing; and so they lost much of North America. Hate and wrath, which serve us so well in daily life, might be almost as good as vanity and foolishness when it comes to revolution. All that is required is a broadening of scope.
If you’re not keeping up with your celebrities, you may have missed the fandango we had here in New York about Caroline Kennedy. The media ordered the governor, Paterson, to appoint her to the Senate seat vacated by Clinton, but he refused to do it, instead naming someone with a chance of beating the ghastly Giuliani, who is almost sure to seek a new perch from which to radiate his poisonous influence. Paterson is now being punished by the media for his disobedience in the form of nasty stories—which are, of course, sourceless and fact-free. But he probably was only following orders from on high for the good of the party. And that’s the latest news except for various actors and athletes taking various drugs. These, I get mixed up—someone should prepare a chart.
Report thisBy cyrena, February 10, 2009 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment
By WriterOnTheStorm, February 9 at 11:51 am #
Who better than Chris Hedges, that staunch defender of Christianity, to know a good con when he sees one. Apparently, the hypocrisy of blasting one manifestation of idol worship while singing the praises of another has escaped his otherwise finely-tuned moral compass.
It is a natural impulse to revere those who are perceived to embody one’s values. In this sense every society has the heroes it deserves. Our celebrity culture is a perfect reflection of the predatory capitalism, commodification, infantilization, and fetishized sexuality for which we are known throughout the world.
~~~
Woo Wee…you hit it here writeronthestorm.
Made me pause for 5 seconds to wonder what spot Oprah has chosen for herself. Surely she will be a lasting goddess of 20th Century CONSUMERISM. Top saleswoman of the 20th Century, and her commissions just keep on coming.
So, maybe she’ll buy the Sears Tower and turn it into her own burial pyramid?
By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, February 9 at 4:06 am #
“For almost 70 years, I’ve been searching for what is more than me. I just can’t be all there is. There’s got to be more. I’m in big trouble if I’m IT.
I thought it was Jesus. Wrong. Then, Elvis. The Beatles. Wrong again. Mickie. Tiger. O.J. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Someone, PLEASE HELP ME!!
Bill Gates. Warren B. The Kennedys.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I just can’t take it anymore.”
Isn’t there SOMEONE out there?
Scottie, PLEEEZE?
~*~*~
Dr. Knowitall,
It’s ME! I’m here! DO NOT DESPAIR. (Scottie isn’t listening anyway…if he was, I’d have been beamed up long ago).
Anyway, the real heroes and heroines are right there under your nose, and I can loan you some of mine if yours are on vacation or whatever. I now have a newly adopted family of FOUR CANINES. Add them to the 4 you’ve already got, and THERE – my friend, you find the ‘bigger than yourself’. Worshipers of canines, birds and plants can rarely go wrong.
By troublesum, February 9 at 10:50 am
• “An effective means of keeping people under control is to make them believe that they are totally insignifgant.”
~~~
This is only ‘effective’ for those who ALLOW themselves to believe that they are totally insignificant. For these kinds of people are the needy ones, (Oprah Winfrey?) who need to have their presence validated by others. How does one go about “making someone else believe” that they are totally insignificant anyway? Seems to me each person is responsible for maintaining their own significance to themselves and those around them.
Report thisBy Folktruther, February 10, 2009 at 11:20 am Link to this comment
Anarcissie- your comments on celebs are the first dingy posts that I remember that you made. Read prole’s post again and re-orient yourself.
I try to follow the love lives the celebs myself in the movie magazines, when the checkout line at the supermarket is slow, but its difficult given they only use first names. So I never learned why Jen left Brad to run away with Evangeline, or whatever it was
And since I only get to the market once every two weeks or so, by that time of course all the relationships have changed and the celebs are already hours deep in their new relationships. So I don’t really have a penetrating insight into their lives, except that they are not like the lives of anyone I know. Or want to know. Or want our children to know.
As for revolutionaries being vain and foolish, the 20th century was decisively determined by Lenin and Mao, and if you think they were vain and foolish I pity you. It is true that Trotsky was vain but he wasn’t foolish. And Che gave his life to try to gain power for the people of Latin America and the world. He may not have gained the respect you have for Brad and Evangiline and their colleagues, but he did impress some of us.
Report thisBy KDelphi, February 10, 2009 at 9:29 am Link to this comment
“Personal style has become a compensation for our loss of democratic equality. Our choice of brands becomes our pathetic expression of individuality.”
It is true. People in the uS think that consumer choice is “freedom”. If it is, it is a very hollow version of the actual freedom we are supposed to be enjoying…It reminds me of the Iraq ‘war” vet who said that invading Iraq was “the right thing to do” and, when asked why, he said that a lady he had met had a “right to go to McDonald’s without getting blown up like anyone else”, sigh
” They tell us that existence is to be centered on the practices and desires of the self rather than the common good” This is a problem everywhere, but, morphed beyong beief in a strictly capitalist society.
Che Guevara icons better than Ronald reagan icons…look at the actual photos of Che , as he aged, and got battle hardened. The “pics” now look nothing like him! I dont know if he would have celebrated this faux worship of him or not. But, he hasnt been alive for awhile to ‘carry it on”. I guess it would depends on which side of the Revolution you might have been on. “fear of commies” is such an old Cold War deal..I will be glad when it is gone. We need some of these countries that Cold Warriors fear, as allies.
“The celebrity industry does not distinguish between people of no merit and the very talented who enrich our lives.” (Sepharad)
This is very true ie. actors vs “stars”. actual quality musicians vs. “stars”. The Grammies the other night were disgusting in their excess. I heard that some were going to “tone it down
“, but, I didnt see it. There are talented people who escape the mold of celebrity, and,. I try to patronize thier plays, movies and music. (if I like it,and can afford it, also) But, everyone spends too much on bread and circus—-politicians, “movie stars” and musicians.
Anaricissie—I think you have to have a huge ego to be a Revolutionary, to be a prime minister, or to be a president. Does anyone here ever wake up and think, “I should be leader of the free world” (to the extent that being pres. of the uS is leader of the “free” world anymore).
Acting or making good music is not about “celebrity” at all. Some very talented people become rich and it seems to ruin them—but some break the mold.
As one who has NEVER watch ed American Idol, nor any “reality” show, who always wished people would stop scraming at concerts so I could hear the music,(even when I was a teenager), I can tell you that, especially in times of “pain” , celebrity can backfire…in the background, Gov Crist of Fla is announicing Pres. Obama’s speech in Ft Myers, with another call for “bi-partisanship”—barf.You can bet your ass that they wouldnt be touting it if McCain had won…Pres. Obama is rebuking some of the GOP/Blue Dog crap—good. But, talk about celebrity!!
Report thisBy Anarcissie, February 10, 2009 at 5:15 am Link to this comment
I guess it will be tedious of me to again mention celebrities who have been leftists or dissidents or who have been poster children for cooperative or altruistic behavior. The doctrine has been proclaimed and the faithful will not deviate from it.
Report thisBy prole, February 10, 2009 at 12:56 am Link to this comment
One of the world’s best known pop celebrities, Tiger Woods revealed on his website last week that he had met Barack Obama at a star-studded gathering at the Lincoln Memorial last month. Woods, who’s recovering from a knee injury, related some of his conversation with pop celebrity Obama, “I did ask him if he wanted to play golf and he said, ‘I’d love to.’ So we’ll make it happen,” Many celebrity-gawking Americans might have a hard time deciding whether in their fantasy they’d rather be Woods so they could play golf with the president, or whether they’d rather be the prez so they could play golf with Tiger. Either way, it brought to mind a perceptive observation half-a-century ago by the great American sociologist (of which there have been too few) the late C. Wright Mills who wryly remarked, “The professional celebrity, male and female, is the crowning result of the star system of a society that makes a fetish of competition. In America, this system is carried to the point where a man who can knock a small white ball into a series of holes in the ground with more efficiency than anyone else thereby gains social access to the President of the United States.” Or vice versa. Regardless, celebrating celebrity - either positively or negatively - may be confusing cause with effect. Obviously, there’s no good reason to lionize someone for ‘knock[ing] a small white ball into a series of holes in the ground with more efficiency than anyone else’. In itself that’s pretty useless, but if you are one of the best at it - no matter how useless it is - you can achieve celebrity status through rising above the competition. Millions of kids play youth sports, or are in the school play, or practice a musical instrument but only a select few achieve stardom. In celebrating the celebrity, the ‘fetish of competition’ is “valorized” . The celebrity is one who beat all the competion to make it to the top. Even if they did get a helping hand or some lucky breaks, along the way. The ‘fetish of competition’ is one of the linchpins of capitalist ideology. Granted in advanced stages of monopoly capital, most economic activity is controlled by a few large corporations with broad governmental support but the illusion of competition is necessary to keep the working population competing with one another for scarce privileges and opportunities rather than organizing in cooperative activism. So, what might at first seem like some vague “celebrity culture” may at base be the promotion of ‘the fetish of competion’. The ones who achieve fame and fortune are admired for winning the competition, not for ‘knock[ing] a small white ball into a series of holes in the ground’ or other equally irrelevant activities. “We are a de facto polytheistic society. We engage in” - competition. Personal competition “has become a compensation for our loss of democratic equality”. The ‘fetish of competition’ “plunges us into a moral void. The highest achievements in a [competition] culture are wealth, sexual conquest and fame. It does not matter how these are obtained” ...“They tell us that existence is to be centered on the practices and desires of the self rather than the common good.” Consequently, “the juxtaposition of the impossible illusions inspired by [competition] culture and our insignificant individual achievements leads to frustration, anger, insecurity and a fear of invalidation. It leads to an accelerated flight toward the celebrity culture” Ergo, “the fantasy of celebrity culture is not designed simply to entertain. It is designed to keep us from fighting back”, through coperative organizing rather than invidious competition.
Report thisBy marcus medler, February 9, 2009 at 11:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I feel compelled to caution intellectuals and cultural commentators to be aware of hype. Much of what he witnessed in that commercial enterprise are results of sales pitches to the living.( good old fleecing) The excess is due to the fact that the fleeced in that local tend to be or were wealthy. This form of fund raising is as old as burials. It manifests throughout time and culture, and provides much fodder for the living. Examples, only a drop in the bucket, of other monumental statements are the Taj Mahal, the burials at Xi’an and the Pyramids of the Nile. What a graveyard tour they make! I like this kind of tour, but think it reflects the dead trying to stay alive, more than revealing the living getting a genie rub.
Report thisBy martin jones, February 9, 2009 at 8:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I have visited that graveyard and it is fascinating.
Report thisTyrone Power was no phony. He was a Marine transport pilot in WW11 and was shot down but successfully crash landed his plane.
Interesting the largest memorial is that of a man whose name is that of a person that has no celebrity whatever.
By M.B.S.S., February 9, 2009 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment
revolution bashing is so counter-revolution 101.
i doubt that any revolutionary, co-opted or not, has ever been as banal as the system they fought against.
of course there is some quality content out there. there has always been some quality content. that doesnt address the degree to which we obsess over our celebrities. they come down from mount olympus to mingle with the mortals in malibu. its disturbing and telling.
of course the entertainment culture isnt entirely bad for people. but for those that have replaced the old gods with that dude from saved by the bell, and the fact that this segment of society is increasing, is scary.
Report thisBy M.B.S.S., February 9, 2009 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment
this article is as close as chris hedges gets to being a paparazzi.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, February 9, 2009 at 5:45 pm Link to this comment
Well, you’re certainly running against the consensus around here. Everyone else knows that celebrities and celebrity culture are bad, bad, and designed by the ruling class to keep us all enslaved. They’re still carrying on that way even after my crack about Che. In fact, a moment’s reflection would recall to them that revolution and revolutionaries not only became celebrities in the Sixties, but they were banalized beyond all recognition. Oh, well.
By the way, I agree that Guevara was vain and foolish, but I imagine almost all revolutionaries are vain and foolish. It seems like a sine qua non for revolutionary leadership. Maybe not George Washington….
As for the function of celebrity, I think Uncle Karl might say that its function and characteristics are determined by the relations of production. Doesn’t that sound terribly Marxist? But it seems to me that it’s true anyway—that celebrity is what we get when we mix the natural desire of primates to find a big, or strong, or clever, or beautiful, or lucky, or witchy fellow primate to follow around, with the culture, technology, and physical structure of the media, which allows images to be multiplied a billionfold while remaining somebody’s property and profit.
Report thisBy Folktruther, February 9, 2009 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment
Great comment, Troublsum. Sekf worth and self respect IS necessary to want to change the world.
I wanted to be a celeb when I was young. To get girls, you know. But that cemetary is grotesque. It is really impossible to parody reality when it is it’s own self-parady.
Report thisBy TAO Walker, February 9, 2009 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment
Sure domesticated people all over the world are kept distracted and in-thrall to the demi-gods of entertainment. Like in any feedlot operation you have to keep the inmates heavily drugged, lest they go nuts, kill their tormentors and each other, and destroy the “facility.”
So just like John Wayne’s “Pilgrim(s)” when they got to Turtle Island, all the tamed two-leggeds are drunk on something all the time. It goes with their captivity.
But hey, “There’s got to be a morning-after.”
HokaHey!
Report thisBy Virginia777, February 9, 2009 at 4:56 pm Link to this comment
Celebrities have very calculatingly been USED by dubious media manipulators.
You need look no further than Brad and Angelina’s sponsorship of Reporters Without Borders, now embroiled in an embezzlement scandal. http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/octubre/vier17/41menard-ing.html
excerpt:
“Since the publication of the Bush Plan to Annex Cuba in 2004, RSF [Reporters Without Borders] –identified in the document – has had no option than to acknowledge its collaboration with the State Department and its hefty remuneration not just through Calzón’s apparatus, but also through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the International Republican Institute (IRI).”
Or George Clooney’s sponsorship of the Save Darfur campaign:
Ten Reasons Why “Save Darfur” is a PR Scam to Justify the Next US Oil and Resource Wars in Africa
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=453&Itemid=37
excerpt:
Report this“The star-studded hue and cry to “Save Darfur” and “stop the genocide” has gained enormous traction in U.S. media along with bipartisan support in Congress and the White House. But the Congo, with ten to twenty times as many African dead over the same period is not called a “genocide” and passes almost unnoticed.”
By Sepharad, February 9, 2009 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Anarcissie—Right of course. Revolutionary icons abound. We have a fat bio on Che on the bookcase, and years ago, when our youngest was 14, one of his buddies asked “Who was Che Guevara?” My husband replied, “A vain and foolish man.” I reflexively started to object to that characterization but, rethinking Che’s long career in the revolutionary spotlight, decided the reply was accurate, if unkind. We even need our revolutionaries to be attractive. Mention Guzman, founder of Peru’s bloody-minded Sendero Luminoso, whose origins and career resembled Che’s in prominence if not righteousness, and most people, even from the radical left, may not be able to place him ... probably because Guzman was slightly pudgy and lacked Che’s celebrity looks.
In general, I disagree that the entertainment culture is in its entirety bad for people, opiate of the masses etc. Books, movies and plays, ballet productions and music concerts are only as good as their content and creators (though you can absorb more information faster reading). The best entertainment can be a window into places we’ll never see, situations we’ll never experience; expose us to beauties of form, movement and sound that are transformative. Bad entertainment—about 99% of what is available on tv and and the big screen—is worthless and mind-numbing. Those who create good entertainment deserve their celebrity status (if not salaries); were there any justice. those who squeeze out bad entertainment would be fined for their efforts, which revenues could be distributed to the more talented. Celebrity per se can be useful outside its own arena, e.g. Bono in Africa. The celebrity industry does not distinguish between people of no merit and the very talented who enrich our lives. So we have to be responsible for making that distinction ourselves, which isn’t that hard.
Report thisBy zenwave, February 9, 2009 at 2:39 pm Link to this comment
Evelyn Waugh portrayed this with great wit in “The Loved One”. Very funny film version was done in the sixties ...
Report thisBy ray d, February 9, 2009 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment
Collin26:
To hope for a celebrity that says something fresh, or even defiant of a status quo—in our current social context—is to hope that a politician will do it.
It is not going to happen, in the current context.
Troublesum makes a good point when he says that “celebrities are people whose lives are validated by millions of others.” My gut feeling is that the great majority of them are shams, and are profoundly insecure people who don’t just happen to be celebrities, but need to be so. Celebrity not only brings fame, it also brings wealth, sexual conquest, oodles, and oodles of personal freedom. Now, why would a celebrity—say Tiger Woods for argument’s sake—who bases so much of himself on the spoils of celebrity—want to risk that? Why would he do that? Because he has strong moral fiber? No. The Tiger Woodses of our cultural scenery DO NOT have a strong moral fiber. What they have is a voracious appetite for power that is only satiated (and it never really is) by the powerful engine of celebrity culture. As Hedges points out, they are our little gods. They’re not going to give that up. I would not risk that, not in a celebrity culture.
It’s the same with our politicians: Democrats and Republicans. They all sell their principles to remain in power. Look at the Republicans, selling out their “fiscal responsibility,” and their clamors for “small government,” when W. Bush launched the GWOT, and created Homeland Security. Look at Obama, and his minions Emmanuel, Pelosi, and Reid, trading a viable stimulus package for so-called bipartisanship.
Now, returning to the idea of celebrities rebelling against power, and using their podiums to say something profound. When celebrities have done that, they have been destroyed, or marginalized. We all remember the Dixie Chicks saying a few negative words about the war. Now, I think it was one phrase they said that was negative about the war. Please, please, please, let’s not confuse that with a bona fide critique of the war, and our politicians. It was a sound-byte, a spontaneous, and unique one, but a sound-byte of criticism nonetheless. And look what happened. Thankfully, their careers were not completely derailed.
If celebrities, or anyone, is going to rebel, they need support. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to rebel alone. That’s suicide. We the people, the other folks on this discussion, the Chris Hedgeses of the world, parents, workers, we all need to try to transform our culture from one of extreme individualism to one of sober community. When something like that is created, an important politician, or celebrity can get on soapbox without worrying about landing on concrete when, inevitably, he will be pushed off. He will be able to count on support. But, when such a culture is created, we won’t need a celebrity to speak out for us.
We could be strong enough to do it ourselves.
Of course, this doesn’t mean we wait for such a thing to speak out. We are all strong enough to speak out, and reach out, in some way.
Report thisBy George Edelman, February 9, 2009 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I wish I could say it was interesting, or at least novel, to hear another voice sing in the choir of pop culture vilification. While I think it refreshing to see any reference to Plato’s cave, despite the obviousness of comparing the ‘shadows on the wall’ to a film projection, I am left wishing Mr. Hedges had the insight to also bring up Aristotle’s ‘Poetics’. In doing so one might then discuss “Poetics” as a reaction to Plato’s assertion that utopia must be without poetry, which I believe is what Mr. Hedges was referencing. However, since greater efforts were spent quoting the cost of a plot next to Marilyn Monroe, I cannot be sure.
I submit that we can look no farther that this very article to size up to what degree pop culture ruins the efforts to think more deeply on any subject; even pop culture itself. Mr. Hedge’s prose is lined with vitriol and hatred, and rather than attempting to grasp at the greater reasons for our celebrity culture and its roots in the fiber of our cultural history as human beings, he condemns it as some sort of step backwards. This piece does not transcend what it despises, but kneels to it cursing everyone within earshot for forcing it to do so. For it is not merely shadows that once danced on those cave walls, but paintings, and through them we were meant to glean an understanding, not merely of the literal world they represented, but of the metaphoric one. It is my view that they were meant to help us understand our own march towards death and change in its many facets, and not just to ‘entertain’.
I would argue that celebrity, and pop culture, the modern extensions of the ancient epic poems themselves, are in fact tools (often featuring gods) to help us understand our world. As an author, it is within Mr. Hedges power to reach towards a deeper understanding of that which takes place around him, or instead to choose simply to condemn it, offering no alternative, or ‘higher way’ to understand what is clearly not only a current global obsession, but also an unyielding historic one. Certainly we should not see these many tales as literal events to mimic (i.e. John Wayne’s heroics in battle no more real than those of Odysseus) but that we should see them as metaphors for existence, and the heroics in the battles of daily life. It is not the only the fans who take the shadows for real, Mr. Hedges, but apparently you as well, and if there is any hope to making Aristotle’s vision of a more useful poetry, it would have to include writers who bother to look beyond the surface themselves.
Report thisBy ocjim, February 9, 2009 at 11:58 am Link to this comment
The fantasy of celebrity culture is not designed simply to entertain. It is designed to keep us from fighting back, even, apparently, in death.
Our celebrity culture does not involve a conscious conspiracy to solidify power and it is only effective and pervasive if you choose to allow it to be. But because it captures all forms of communication, including the internet, education media, and filling stations now, it is so omniscient that it requires a conscious effort, involving thought and education, to counter its affects.
So is it specifically designed to keep us from fighting back or is it just designed to influence our choices?
Report thisBy WriterOnTheStorm, February 9, 2009 at 11:51 am Link to this comment
Who better than Chris Hedges, that staunch defender of Christianity, to know a good con when he sees one. Apparently, the hypocrisy of blasting one manifestation of idol worship while singing the praises of another has escaped his otherwise finely-tuned moral compass.
It is a natural impulse to revere those who are perceived to embody one’s values. In this sense every society has the heroes it deserves. Our celebrity culture is a perfect reflection of the predatory capitalism, commodification, infantilization, and fetishized sexuality for which we are known throughout the world.
At least matinee idols are relevant to modern, living society, and not the dead, morbid representations of bronze-age superstition and primitive sacrifice ritual. It could be argued wether a modern hero like John Lennon has brought as much happiness to the world as the Christian hero Jesus Christ, but there can be no doubt which of the two has brought more misery.
Report thisBy ntc, February 9, 2009 at 11:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Thanks Chris. This is a beautiful sermon, and it really made me think…
Report thisBy troublesum, February 9, 2009 at 10:50 am Link to this comment
Celebrities are people whose lives are validated by millions of others. In contrast, to be unknown is to be so unimportant as to be non existent. An effective means of keeping people under control is to make them believe that they are totally insignifgant. We find an increasing number of celebrities becoming politically active because political activity follows naturally the belief that one’s life is meaningful. People become politically passive when they believe they don’t matter.
Report thisBy colin2626262, February 9, 2009 at 10:16 am Link to this comment
Hey, good article, Chris.
But don’t you think it’s possible that a celebrity could break the mold and start saying things in the media that were truly meaningful? Let’s say a celebrity (who has all this access to the public and all this exposure to the whole world)—let’s say he or she starts talking about reality, about real faith and love and engagement with the world. That could start a revolution of sorts, a spiritual revolution—if the person is spiritual. Let’s say a well known celebrity becomes an anti-war spokesperson, even though there already are those kinds of celebrities. But let’s imagine this celebrity has something new to say, a new message, an original spiritual message to convey. That would be beautiful. It would reach so many people. So don’t knock celebrity culture too much. You never know what might happen.
Report thisBy coloradokarl, February 9, 2009 at 10:07 am Link to this comment
Opium for the Masses? I think if we need Opium let’s buy it all from the Afghanis and get more content in the MSM. The false Gods of the “Elite”, The perfect smiles on perfect bodies, the lethargic masses chomp cheese puffs and dream , “What IF?”.. The unfolding reality of economic class warfare will shock many to their senses and leave the rest crusty and glazed with tans-fat to follow their permanent carpet worn trail to the toilet. The “Stars” are Good and Greasy they they will go good with Worcestershire and lemon, broiled with Garlic. July brings the barbecue, Don’t forget the potato salad.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, February 9, 2009 at 9:21 am Link to this comment
Revolution has had its turn, its fifteen minutes, as a celebrity too. Remember all the Che Guevara icons?
Report thisBy Shift, February 9, 2009 at 8:33 am Link to this comment
A well described Circus of Death.
Report thisBy ian, February 9, 2009 at 8:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Great article. All part of the massive con job that is busy falling around our ears at the moment.
Report thisBy Allan Gurfinkle, February 9, 2009 at 7:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I think the underlying cause of the fascination with Hollywood is what I call the ‘disappearance of reality’. Your reality is determined by the your interactions with the outside (of yourself) world. Increasingly, these interactions are not with our immediately surroundings, the old reality, but rather with the electronic grid that permeates the physical world, that is, cyberspace, the new reality. If I am interacting with cyberspace, like I am right now, then even though I am physically located in some location, I am not acting in that local reality.
For example, suppose in some small town in the US on a Tuesday night 50% of the people are watching TV and are tuned to Seinfeld. Then their brains are all in sync, but they are not mentally present in their hometown. They have disappeared. Hollywood is defining their everyday reality. So, of course, they are obsessed with Hollywood.
Today, if you go into a bar in the US, there will be several TV screens. The local reality is insufficient. We have to be continually hooked up to cyber-reality. We are becoming increasingly oblivious to local reality. Local reality is ceasing to exist.
The only way local reality will ever make a comeback is if towns are created with enforced laws that limit TV to one hour per day and internet activity to one hour per day.
Report thisBy Catherine, February 9, 2009 at 5:21 am Link to this comment
Where would all those celebrities be without ‘we the people’? If we didn’t “celebrate” them, they would not be “celebrities,” and I, for one, would love for all the hoopla to simply stop, for the celebration to come to an end. We should be so much more than star worshipers and realize these people put their pants on just like the rest of us do. Same thing with politicians. None of these elevated people would be where they are without our allowing it to happen. Choices made, as Octopus said so well, and nothing will change until “we the people” really want it to change, and that means changing ourselves and the kinds of choices we make.
Report thisBy Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, February 9, 2009 at 4:06 am Link to this comment
For almost 70 years, I’ve been searching for what is more than me. I just can’t be all there is. There’s got to be more. I’m in big trouble if I’m IT.
I thought it was Jesus. Wrong. Then, Elvis. The Beatles. Wrong again. Mickie. Tiger. O.J. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Someone, PLEASE HELP ME!!
Bill Gates. Warren B. The Kennedys.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I just can’t take it anymore.
Isn’t there SOMEONE out there?
Scottie, PLEEEZE?
Report thisBy octopus, February 9, 2009 at 3:54 am Link to this comment
Keyword search:
Culture Jamming
Subvertising
Reclaim the Streets
Billboard Liberation Front
Guy Debord and Situationists
Jorge Rodriguez de Gerada
Buying in to Celebrity Culture is a conscious choice.
Report thisChoosing not to is a revolutionary act….
By Peter, February 9, 2009 at 3:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The headstone of Sylvia Plath was “uprooted and carted away” not by thieves or worshippers, as your article implies, but by her Estate in order to be repaired - the HUGHES in the headstone being repeatedly chiseled off by vandals.
Report this