new celebrities, new cultures
By
grant
Light blogging today thanks to those scoundrels at Optimum
Online. This morning, in the new house, I
had internet service. Then it
stopped. So Optonline could come out “and
turn it on.” When are they going to
cease and desist this little scam?
To the business at hand. In New brands, new consumers, a couple of days ago, I reflected on the
success of a perfume that had deliberately embraced an unexpected rubbery scent. I noted that a move away from the agreeable
and bland opens up a vast terrain of new meanings for products and for
brands.
Today, as I was shifting boxes, I began thinking about Mel
Gibson and Tom Cruise. Here are two
celebrities who do not appear to be following the traditional playbook.
In the old model, really big stars were scrupulously careful
to remain noncontroversial. They sought
flattering roles on screen, and an agreeable persona off screen. (Indeed this distinguished them from actors,
people prepared to play even odious characters.)
The old model changed a little when big stars began to
embrace unattractive roles on screen. Mel Gibson was all about being charismatic on his way up. But in the last couple of years he has played
roles that were not especially flattering. I believe Payback and Conspiracy Theory serve as cases in point. In the same way, Tom Cruise played an
assassin recently. (Sorry, I can’t think
of the picture. It’s the one with Jamie
Foxx. Thank you Optonline for blocking
my access to IMDB.)
And now both Gibson and Cruise have gone a step further still
and devoted their private lives to projects that are controversial for many and
loathsome to a few. (I am thinking of
Gibson’s The Passion and Cruise’s recent “exuberance” on Oprah. There isn’t enough data here, and clearly it
will be a cold day in hell before we see anything like this from Julia Roberts
or Michael Caine. But if this is early
indication of a new trend, perhaps we will see celebrities express themselves
more frankly.
This difference would make a difference. As it is, celebrities remain great guarantors
of the uncontroversial, unmarked, unexceptional. They have suppressed their real individuality
to broaden the base of their fandom. Their roles on screen may help encourage (and in a cultural sense fund)
our heterogeneity as a society, but their private lies do the opposite. They suggest (and perhaps help fund) a
private blandness.
Let us see whether celebrities become more
forthcoming, and what difference this difference makes to the rest of us.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to my sister-in-law Michelle Goodman for helping me
to identify several movie titles. Thanks
to Starbucks for a remedy for Optonline’s thuggish behavior. Thanks
for the several great comments on recent posts. I promise to respond the moment I am not having to do so from the
Starbuck’s parking lot.
3 Comments
July 8th, 2005 at 10:12 am
You made me LOL today – thank you. (I needed a laugh this morning after the news…)
Interesting observation about celebrities — do you think it applies to other kinds of stars (e.g. business celebs?)
July 8th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Sorry, Grant, I forgot to tell you the Jamie Foxx, Tom Cruise movie was Collateral.
Great blog. (but I still think Cruise is a phoney with a bad publicist)
July 11th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Susan, great to hear your voice, that's a good point, I think CEOs have always had a little more latitude, perhaps because we have expected them to be leaders in the heroic manner. Which is to say they know must live with a double bind: they have to be completely uncontroversial and leaders with bold vision and great creativity. It would be interesting to know how the PR people grapple with this contradiction. thanks, Grant
Michelle, thanks for the detail, the word is that Cruise fired all his publicists and is now flying solo. Best, Grant