From a 2003 interview with Toby Young, celeb interviewer, memoirist and author of "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People":
"I have this idea for a dystopian satire. It's set in the immediate future, and it's going to be about the moment when ordinary Americans turn on the celebrity class. There's going to be a sort of French Revolutionary-style bloodbath where A-list celebrities are strung up from lampposts and lynched on street corners. The storming-the-Bastille moment is going to be when the looky-loos outside the 2023 Academy Awards kind of break through into the Kodak Theater and start lynching A-list movie stars on live TV." (Only 15 minutes 'til the first VF Oscar party reference, I note.)Don't we already live in a celebritocracy? Not in the sense that the National Inquirer and the Star and People and Vanity Fair and cable news continue to inflate the importance of celebrities (including wannabes from the media like Anna Wintour or Graydon Carter or A-- C------). That kind of thing has been going on for a long time."And it sets off a chain reaction across the United States," he continues, leaning in, conspiratorially. "And there's a scarlet pimpernel figure, who's kind of a second rate English talent agent based in Los Angeles, and in the pre-revolutionary era, he couldn't get anyone to return his calls. But in the post-revolutionary era, he figures out a way to get celebrities to safety. And the way he does that is, the only country where celebrities are still safe is Britain, because they're such craven starfuckers that the revolution doesn't actually affect them. And the way he smuggle celebrities out of Los Angeles is by disguising them as flight attendants on Virgin Atlantic. They occasionally get spotted. They get rumbles in mid-air and tossed off the plane. I need to come up with the right word to describe this celebrity apocalypse. If I can come up with the right word, I'll be in business. My father wrote a similar book in the 1950s called 'The Rise of the Meritocracy,' which is about a bloody revolution in which a kind of meritocratic overclass overcame and coined the term 'meritocracy.' I want to coin a similar word to describe a society in which celebrities are the kind of governing class."
What I'm fascinated by is the insistence by some of the media entertainers (from Sean Hannity to Wolf Blitzer) that the lives and political views of celebrities really are as important as those of elected officials! It's just amazing. Quote from a reader at Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish blog:
... [T]he actor Alec Baldwin was on a radio show in NYC a short time ago when conservative radio hosts Sean Hannity and Marc Levin called in to hurl insults against him. During the course of the 7-minute battle, Levin, out of nowhere, suddenly seeks to mock Baldwin as "Brokeback Alec."This is hilarious! Well, OK, pathetic. But it reveals the priorities and reasoning abilities of lightweights like Hannity and Levin when they feel they have to call in to a talk show to hurl nonsensical names at an actor. (BTW, "30 Rock" is really funny most of the time. It's a TV sitcom. Starring Alec Baldwin. I hope Hannity and Levin will call in to randomly question Jim Belushi's sexuality the next time he does promotion for "According to Jim." Then they can go on Ellen DeGeneres's show and accuse her of having a hankering for man-flesh!)Which, when you think of it, makes no sense. You can love or hate Alec Baldwin. But to hurl the epithet "Brokeback Alec" at him – at an actor who was married to, and had children with Kim Basinger, who has had any number of relationships with any number of starlets -- to call him "Brokeback Alec" is as nutty, as counterintuitive and just plain silly, as to hurl that ["faggot"] epithet against Edwards!
[Sullivan responds]: Mark Levin anti-gay? I listened to the exchange. Levin called Baldwin a "butt-boy" as well as "Brokeback Alec."
What Hannity and Levin and other celebritalkers don't get is that they themselves are just celebrities, famous for being on TV or radio. (And, I suspect, some acting talent.) If Toby Young's "revolution" ever comes about, they'll be the first ones to go -- not because they're "A-list" (they're certainly not), but because, like Paris Hillton or Zsa Zsa Gabor, they're famous just for being famous. They're at the bottom rung of celebrity along with reality TV personalities (maybe above William Hung but below Rob and Amber), yet their entire careers depend on them pretending to be serious ideologues. (Except for Rush Limbaugh, who admits to just being an "entertainer" who makes stuff up in character that he's not stupid enough to actually believe himself. Is that worse?)
It's sad that you know who Rob and Amber are, cause I don't.
What's killed me in the last few days is James Cameron who's not talking about politics, but about science and religion, as if by him saying something it validates the notion that because they found a tomb with the names Jesus and Mary inscribed on them that the Christ was married and with kids and never rose from the grave an actual fact -- why would they even interview him? Even the guy who discovered it seemed to think that the notion was silly, as there were many Mary's and Jesus' then. I'm sorry, but if you don't believe in the sanctity of Christ, why should you care so strongly that other people do? Though I am looking forward to Cameron's next sci-fi film with Sigourney. He can spout off all he wants just so long as he finishes that sucker... does that make me a hypocrite?
Good read Jim--
The word Celebritocracy doesn't imply the Darwinian or incestuous nature of the Business. Is it "Celebutardisim?'
Is A-- C------ an official celebutard?I understood your reference, and its Unspeakable Name. She is quite the Lovecraftian Golem. If she ADMITTED she was a comedian, I could validate her behavior of pandering and tittilating her audience as she does.
-"yet their entire careers depend on them pretending to be serious ideologues."-
She is intentionally provocative, but lacks the depth of character as, i.e. Howard (satellite) Stern.
Her and Hannity should appear on dirty celeb-gossip blogs, if CNN inversely flips attention on that Other Blonde Attention Harlot, P---- H-----.
I suggest we approach Celebutardiarreah with all of the mettle of Sun Tzu's Art of War. It helps my unconditional love of Hollywood.
Just my opinion, but maybe celebrities and pundits speaking out- and many citizens' reliance on theire spoken words- stems from the current state of politics and politicians. In other words, when presidents are being given blowjobs in the office, senators are seducing pages, members of the cabinets are spilling secrets, and all sorts of corruption is happening- and add to that, politicians seem to be unreliable and completely out of touch with America- many look to others for their voices.
It seems to me, most listen to pundits and celebrities simply because they agree with them. It's never for enlightenment. And when they inevitably come to an issue that they disagree with, the listeners never deal with the speakers again. It's like they personally backstabbed them. Best example: The Dixie Chicks. Being that they're country artists, many expected them to be conservative (this genre of music is notoriously known for being all-American and expressing everything great about our nation). When they spoke out against Bush, they lost a huge portion of their fanbase. For some reason, these ladies' views are important, because if they disagree, it's like they...I don't know...different from them. What a shocker!
I'm with you only to a point, Mason. Compared to yesteryear, our notions of political scandal are pretty tame. We certainly do take our celebrities a little more seriously than we used to, but that, too, is nothing new -- we've always been obsessed with them, and they've always caused a fuss. I'd provide examples, but do I really have to?
Sleaze has always sold, and I'm afraid all we're seeing here is a modern take on the same old song.
The bizarro gay accusations of Alec Baldwin by rightwing pundits shouldn't be too big of a surprise.
It's a tired trop that the right has been trotting out about the left since at least the 60s, even in head-scratching contexts.
There's a really good essay about the phenomenon at here --
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/tarzan-jane-and-cheetah-by-digby-i.html
Here's a quote from it --
"Here's just a small sampling of how this has played out in just the last six years:
* Al Gore needed to be taught how to be an 'alpha male.' He doesn't 'know who he is.'
* John Kerry "flip-flops" like a flaccid penis.
* John Edwards is 'the Breck girl.'
* Howard Dean was 'hysterical.'
* Barack Obama is 'Obambi.'
* Bill Clinton was 'a pervert.'
* Hillary Clinton is a lesbian.
The underlying premise of the modern conservative movement is that the entire Democratic party consists of a bunch of fags and dykes who are both too effeminate and too masculine to properly lead the nation. Coulter says it out loud. Dowd hints at it broadly. And the entire press corps giggles and swoons at this shallow, sophomoric concept like a bunch of junior high pom pom girls...."
Check it out. It's a really good piece.
Oh, for god's sake, would you lay off Ann Coulter? Just because she said the people who lost family members in the September 11th terrorist attacks didn't deserve to be treated as if they were more important than people who lost family members in less spectacular ways...
JE: Oh, I'd forgotten about that one. What she actually said about a certain group of 9/11 widows was (and I quote): “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.” She can sure dish it out (that's her shtick), so I'm sure she can take it. I'll lay off A-- C------ (I never mention her by name; she's only in it for the publicity) when she lays off everyone else. And that's not gonna happen.