Charity Case

Instead of (or in addition to) blowing their money on the latest designer clothes, newest car, or drugs and alcohol, many celebrities instead choose to lend their time and money to charity. Some of the most influential celebrities are the ones who go beyond the red carpet and give to charity. Bono, Paul Newman, Oprah, Shakira, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, and Natalie Portman immediately come to mind as stars who use their powers for, well, good rather than evil. Looktothestars.org (http://www.looktothestars.org/) is a website that tracks celebrity charity work, charities with celebrity supporters, and causes that celebrities endorse. The "celebrities" page is filled with a seemingly endless list of names of celebrities that support a wide array of charities and causes, from Autism Speaks to the Surfrider Foundation. Websites like this show that celebrities can and often use their fame to benefit others.
I think that it's important to note that, for some, becoming involved in a charity is a long, arduous process. "Lisa Szarkowski, spokesman for the U.S. Fund for UNICEF, said that becoming a goodwill ambassador for the children's and women's assistance organization is a rigorous commitment that includes fund-raising, media appearances and a 'large education process'" (1). Thus, I believe that it is safe to assume that Lucy Liu, Angelina Jolie, and Sarah Jessica Parker are all committed to their causes. I don't think that it matters if a celebrity joins a cause to repair a tarnished image - those in need are still benefiting from the celebrity's actions, whether altruistic or not.
In addition to donating money and time to charities, celebrities also appear in ad campaigns for causes. Pop singer Fergie, for example, has appeared in ads for The Candie's Foundation, which aims to prevent teen pregnancy, as well as MAC's Viva Glam campaign for AIDS awareness. Ad campaigns are a very useful way for a celebrity to show endorsement of a cause. The public will directly link that star's image with the cause they are advertising. Ad campaigns also effectively use the media - when a star joins a cause it's bound to get attention. Thus, stars are using the media, a force that often harms rather than helps them, to put forth their own agenda.


Works Cited:
1) CNN Contributors
2006 Causes Celebre: Celebrities and Their Causes. Electronic Document. http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/20/celeb.causes/index.html. Accessed December 2, 2008.

Images:
1) http://fieldnotes.unicefusa.org/LLinDRC1.jpg
2) http://www.candiesfoundation.org/img_popup2.html?fergie_700.jpg

Celebrity in Chief?

Celebrity and politics are becoming increasingly intertwined. Arnold Schwarzenegger (and Ronald Regan before him) is governor of California. John McCain appeared on "The Rachel Ray Show," Barack Obama on "The Late Show With David Letterman," Joe Biden on "The Today Show," and, of course, Sarah Palin on "Saturday Night Live." Of course, these TV appearances have become necessary if candidates want the public's attention, and whoever has the larger "celebrity status" will likely win the election. It's a matter of name recognition - completely uninformed voters will often vote for the names that they recognize, regardless of the agenda behind that name. However, when Heidi and Spencer of The Hills endorse John McCain's presidential campaign and Christina Aguilera, P. Ditty, and Justin Timberlake (as well as many other celebrities) participate in ad campaigns for Rock The Vote, one has to wonder if politics is being dumbed down or trivialized to appeal to the American people. "It's not that the candidates have entirely given up serious speeches, solemn debates and aggressive political attacks. It's that their dance cards also are thick with appearances and events designed to entertain us. Sometimes, the contrast is jarring" (1).
"With the rise of new technologies such as cable television, talk radio, and the internet, the news business has become very competitive and more likely to focus on gossip and prominent personalities." (2) In addition, campaign costs have skyrocketed over the past decade, making celebrity endorsements/appearences on the campaign trail an efficient way to raise funds without spending much. "This need for cash forces politicians into alliances with athletes, actors, and artists who can headline fundraising events. In order to guarantee a large turnout at a fundraising party, it has become common to feature comedians, singers, and other celebrities who can attract a large crowd" (2). Celebrities and politicians have developed a reciprocal relationship - celebrities have the media's attention, and politicians have credibility. Both need each other to get their views out to the public.

After the Vietnam War and Watergate scandals in the 1960's, both the public and news media became far more skeptical of politicians. Elected officials lost the trust of the people they needed most: voters and the media. The voters to keep them in office, and the media keep their PR up by printing good things about them. "In many cases, celebrities are seen as white knights who can clean up the political establishment and bring new ideas to public policymaking. They are not tainted by past partisan scandals or political dealings. They are seen as too rich to be bought" (1).



Works Cited:
1) Marla Puente
2008 Hail to the Chief Celebrity? That's Politics Mixed With Entertainment. USA Today, October 12.
2) Darrel M. West
2003 Celebrity Politics. Electronic Document. www.insidepolitics.org/HedgehogReviewCelebrityPolitics.doc. Accessed December 2, 2008.
Images:
1) http://www.fashionphile.com/blog/tag/kim-kardashian/
2) http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/20071210/293.obama.winfrey.121007.jpg

From Fame to Infamy and Back Again

There's a big difference between fame and celebrity. In my opinion, fame extends to everyone in the public eye: Authors, producers, and CEO's are all famous. But they're not celebrities. The paparazzi are not stalking them every time they leave their houses. They aren't being written about (for the most part) in People or on Page Six.
I stayed with my aunt, uncle, and cousin in Providence, RI over Thanksgiving Break (I couldn't afford to travel home to my family in California over the five-day break from school), and as my aunt and I were driving home from an appointment Saturday morning, she casually mentioned that her and her husband's best friends are the Van Allsburg family, and the husband is the author of The Polar Express, Jumangi, and several other children's books. This surprised me when she first told me - I almost didn't believe her. How could her best friend have written several books that are staples in many children's bookcases and that have been turned into hit movies.
However, after I thought about it for a minute, I realized that I shouldn't be so surprised. When was the last time virtually ANY non-celebrity author appeared in the "Star Tracks" section of People magazine? When was the last time a CEO, political activist, etc. appeared in one of those magazines? That's the difference between fame and celebrity.

Of course, there are several degrees to celebrity. For example, at home in Southern California I live next door to one of the Suitcase Girls from the TV show Deal Or No Deal. But there aren't paparazzi outside of her house, waiting to watch her go to the grocery store. She's a minor, almost insignificant celebrity. Of course, if she were to be involved in some sort of a scandal, the media would likely pay attention, as people will pay attention to any sort of celebrity scandal.
And then, of course, there are the Brittney Spears, Lindsay Lohans, and Paris Hildtons of the world. Celebrities that have had the paparazzi following them for just about as long as I can remember looking at celebrity magazines. Of course, these celebrities are more infamous that famous. There are celebrities like Angelina Jolie, Oprah Winfrey, and Natalie Portman who use their fame to do a lot of good. It's interesting to note, however, that these celebrities aren't often depicted stumbling out of clubs at 3 AM, completely trashed. These celebrities aren't taken away to mental hospitals, nor do their families have to stage interventions to make them change their ways. So I think that there has to be a difference between the categories of superstars. Maybe it's age, maybe it's technology. Maybe it's education, maybe it's the type of work they've pursued throughout their careers.

Or maybe it's just inevitable that some stars will rise while others fall.

How We Got Here, Part 2

Ok, so now I know how America became receptive to the celebrity culture. I think that now it's important to understand how studios turned their clients into the superstars that they are today.

After the communications revolution and mass urbanization, personality became the way to distinguish the self from the masses. Celebrity was a measure of success - how much attention your personality could get you was what people valued.
At this time (1900's) the entertainment became centralized in New York City. This made perfect sense - Ellis Island was the port through which nearly every immigrant came through and Broadway was the entertainment hub of the elite. Because of this, a new, almost commercial industry evolved around the stars. Agents packaged their stars to attract an audience, which fueled the distribution of images, information, and money. Celebrities were able to branch all cultural levels: between 1901 and 1914, 74% of subjects in The Saturday Evening Post and Colliers were political, business, or other professional figures. After 1922, however, over half of the subjects came from the entertainment industry (TV, movies, music, and sports).
After the film industry moved out to Hollywood, celebrity culture became a national pastime, as celebrities were able to transcend all cultural levels. Celebrity gossip magazines like today's People or US Weekly, press agencies, and agents themselves gained more power and had more influence over the public's perception of celebrities. The image of the star is what the agents and studios were selling to the public, not the actual star. Studios had portrait studios to create the perfect image of larger-than-life celebrities. While Broadway's finances dwindled in the 1930's, radio and then TV made its stars virtual family members - nearly every household in America had one, and families gathered together to listen to it nightly. Radio and TV also created virtual family members out of politicians and greatly shaped the public's perception of them - FDR's fireside chats helped garner support amongst the American people, while the television of Joseph McCarthy's hearings instilled fear in the hearts of citizens.
Celebrity then lay in the power of possessing a microphone, camera, and an audience, not in actual merit or virtue. This has created simulacra - images with no real relevance to the average citizen's world. This is still relevant today - why do people feel the need to watch Brittney Spears trying to stage her umpteenth comeback when, at the same time, the economy is falling apart and a historic presidential election is taking place?
Andy Warhol declared that one day, everyone will have their 15 minutes of fame. This prophecy may actually come true one day with Perez Hilton, TMZ, and even YouTube always on the lookout for the next wave of "celebrities."

"A common complaint of modern celebrity culture is that the public, instead of seeking virtues or talents in celebrities, seek those who are the most willing to break ethical boundaries, or those who are most aggressive in self-promotion. In other words, infamy has replaced fame. The social role of the town drunk, the court jester, or the sexually indecent are not new, but arguably, the glorification of these individuals is."

Historical information found at:
Henderson, Amy
1992 Media and the Rise of Celebrity Culture. Organization of American Historians Magazine of History 6 (4).

Quote found at:
Wikipedia.com User
2007 Celebrity Culture. Electronic Document http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_culture, accessed November 28, 2008.

How We Got Here, Part 1

I think that before further delving into the current culture of Young Hollywood, I should step back to take a look at the history of celebrity in America and how it has evolved over time.


From the reading I've done, I've come to the conclusion that idolization and celebrity are deeply intertwined in American culture. After the American Revolution, citizens idolized military and literary heros (George Washington), as well as statesmen (Thomas Jefferson), to give the country a sense of historical legitimacy. The traditional social institutions personified and idolized are the building blogs of a democratic nation - the nation that the Founding Fathers and colonists hoped to produce after the Revolution.
Between 1820 and 1860, Americans began to look toward a new, abstract set of ideals in a hero. Known as the "American Adam," this new idol was a figure of innocence and promise for the new nation. Americans were optimistic about the emerging culture of their new nation - the emerging novelists, essayists, poets, critics, historians, and preachers all epitomized self-reliance, virtue, and industry - values that everyday people admired. Abraham Lincoln can be seen as the figurehead of the "American Adam" hero - Ralph Waldo Emerson referred to him as "a man of the people [with a] strong sense of duty" in 1865. This was not an alien notion to the country - the Founding Fathers, as well as first presidents of America upheld similar values.
However, in the late 19th century, the communications revolution and newly-created large urban city-scapes changed the face of fame itself. The graphic revolution allowed magazines and newspapers to mass-produce and be distributed to all areas of the country. With the high speed press, linotype, and halftone photo reproduction came news organizations such as the Associated Press. Daily newspapers became the average citizen's supplier of local & world news. During this time (1867-1890), increasing literacy rates and increasing leisure time caused the circulation of the daily paper to increase by about 400%.
In addition, magazines such as McClures began publication in the 1890's. These publications engaged its readers imaginations to re-define ideas of fame, success, and national heroism. Idols became hero-inventors such as Thomas Edison and Henry Ford; as well as commercial entrepreneurs such as John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan. All of these men rose to the top of their respective fields through Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest), which many citizens believed was the cause of the success of some and failure of many.
The mass migration of Eastern and Southern Europeans at the close of the 19th century created urbanized cities, middle classes, and dissolved the "genteel tradition" - the refined, almost aristocratic air - of the century past. This urbanization created a vernacular culture that became rooted in the entertainment industry. Entertainment was available for people of all social classes (from Vaudeville shows to Broadway productions), and thus all types of people demanded information on celebrities in newspapers and magazines. The rise of celebrity culture, however, is largely attributed to the switch from a production to a consumption society. Farming was no longer the family's means of survival. Instead, people commuted to the newly developed cities for work.
This caused a switch in cultural perspectives in the upper and upper middle classes - they felt threatened by the immigrants swarming into their cities and towns, taking their jobs, etc. The upper classes then began to tilt inward - away from selfless virtue and towards self-realization (away from character and towards personality). Personality consequently became a way to distinguish the self from the masses, and celebrity (how much attention your personality could get you) became the measure of success.

So, the urbanization of America and the communications revolution is what set the stage for the Hollywood culture. In my next entry, I plan to discover how the celebrities became, well, celebrities: adored by the masses, followed by photographers, written about by journalists, and never left alone.



Information found at:
Henderson, Amy
1992 Media and the Rise of Celebrity Culture. Organization of American Historians Magazine of History 6 (4).

Paris Does Her Part

Paris Hilton is probably one of the most infamous "famous-for-nothing" celebrities in Young Hollywood's culture. The Simple Life won the ASCAP Award for Top TV Series and the BMI TV Music Award in 2004, and "Paris and Nicole's rural misadventures on The Simple Life have proved so popular with viewers that Fox World has produced international versions for overseas television" (1).

Though her ditzy personality has been the butt of many jokes, Paris does appear to have some common sense in her. Young Hollywood.com reported that Paris "says, 'I pledge to support the American work force by wearing only American designers: Calvin Klein between Memorial Day and Labor Day, Donna Karan the rest of the year'" (2).

Ok, so I realize that there are plenty of things that Paris could do with her money that would support the people who lost their jobs because of the economy. But, when you think about it, spending money is what's going to boost the American economy. Regardless of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco or the credit crunch, a simple increase in demand for a good will create a supply. That supply will generate revenue for all the employees of the company, and in the long run could create more jobs as well.

I very well know that donating time and money to a food bank, soup kitchen, or homeless shelter would be very much appreciated and is needed very badly. And those in need should in no way be overlooked. However, it's Paris Hilton. And as we all know, she is material to no end.
So this made me think about my disdain for the obsession with young Hollywood. In my last post I think I established that those in the young Hollywood scene are just living their lives. They have access to clubs, alcohol, and drugs, and they often don't know any other lifestyle. So I can understand why they live the way they do. Why not? They're young, rich, and beautiful.

So then, that brings me to the nation's obsession with young Hollywood. I think that part of it may stem from things like Paris buying only American designers and Nicole Ritchie trying to settle down and raise a child. Also, when sex tapes made by socialites like Kim Kardashian go public, the public gets to witness both the scandal and its aftermath. Their poise and dignity, as well as their breakdowns on their reality shows, gives people hope that they can make it through their own personal tragedies. Their tragedies aren't broadcasted to the nation on E! News or in People magazine. While they have to face their friends, family, and community in light of a tragic event, they don't have the knowledge that a random housewife in Allentown, Pennsylvania, knows their dirty laundry. I think it gives them comfort to know that there is someone worse of than them whose suffering can be seen as trivial: they don't have to deal with making the rent or mortgage and paying the bills each month.

1. Wikipedia.com User
2007. The Simple Life. Electronic Document. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Simple_Life, Accessed October 19, 2008
2. Younghollywood.com Staff
2008 Hilton's a Fashionable Patriot. Electronic Document.
http://www.younghollywood.com/news/2008/10/19/hiltons-a-fashionable-patriot.html, Accessed October 19, 2008

Media Magnification

When doing some research on Google today, I stumbled an article from MSNBC that makes a very valid point about the young hollywood lifestyle:

"But is it all blown out of proportion or is young Hollywood really out of control? Let’s look at the facts…

But again, young celebrities getting into trouble is anything but a new concept.

The ’90s had Shannen Doherty’s “90210” crew and the ’80s had the Brat Pack — each with their own share of troubles. Just look at Charlie Sheen’s drug past and Rob Lowe’s sex tape scandal."

This is very true. Reading the article made me realize something very important in understanding the phenomenon surrounding young hollywood. Young stars have always had access to clubs, drugs, alcohol and other forms of illegal fun. It's not their lifestyle that's changed. It's the media that's changed.

“'In the ’80s when you were back in that young, hot scene, there weren’t blogs and there weren’t all these things,' Emilio told Access Hollywood’s Billy Bush.

'Do you think it would have ruined you back then?' Billy asked.

'It’s quite possible because every move is documented,' Emilio admitted"

Granted, this article is dated December 13, 2006. However, it is even more relevant now than it was when published nearly two years ago. Celebrity-oriented web sites like www.perezhilton.com and www.tmz.com have grown ever more popular along with TV shows like Access Hollywood and E! News and magazines like People and US Weekly.

These websites, TV shows, and magazines are responding to a huge demand by the public. I will readily admit that I subscribe to People magazine and enjoy indulging in the lives of celebrities for about an hour a week. But when I read, I pay more attention to the lives of the stars that have somewhat respectable careers. When I see Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie, or Lauren Conrad mentioned, I usually skip past the blurbs on their lives. They haven't done anything meaningful with their careers; they don't deserve attention.



Article and quotes found at:
Access Hollywood. 2006 Is Young Hollywood Out Of Control? Electronic Document, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16194594/, Accessed October 7, 2008