celebreakups
lance and sheryl. heather and richie. bobby and whitney (well, we can hope anyway). all couples rumored (or confirmed) to have split within the past two weeks, still fresh on the heels of nick and jessica, and the after-shocks we still feel from brad and jen last year. not only is it almost guaranteed that celebrity couples are doomed to fail before they even begin, but i can't help but feel some small inkling of satisfaction when the splits are plastered across the headlines. why? because i like my celebrities single.
i hate it when they're happy in love. i hate it when they're hand in hand on the cover of people, and my goodies, do i hate it when one of their stomachs is hanging out two feet in front of them, soon to be replaced with a stroller.
it's really just that they're so much more interesting when they're single...there's that allure about them. they're celebrities afterall. people who simply have transcended to an ethereal plane of recognition that affords them the minimum of privacy, and the maximum of opportunity. but to the public, they became famous for who they are (or the image they project)...whether it's the musicians we want to party with, or the movie stars we want to date, or the auteurs we want to have coffee with. in any and all cases, their fame is a result of their relationship to the public, and i think we are all lying to ourselves if we don't secretly prefer these relationships to be monogamous.
of course celebrities are just people at the end of the day, and should be afforded the same rights as everyone else, blah blah, so great. there are probably 100 million single people in the country. yet, why is it that so many of them seek out other celebrity mates like it's their job? maybe because for some of them, (nick lachey..cough), it is. when a celebrity's star starts to fall, it's always a smart decision to couple up with someone else making headlines...and even if that person isn't, the sheer novelty of two b-listers together, can propel them to a-list status.
then we are forced to watch these relationships unfold. first, there are the shy denials and no comments, followed by the fuzzy paparazzi shots from afar in the national enquirer, and then the sudden first public appearance on the red carpet, followed by the gushing on oprah and the cover story in vanity fair, and that's when the interest begins to wane (because nobody cares about a happy couple), until, of course, the rumors of a split begin to surface in much the same way, and the whole cycle unravels in reverse culminating with the barbara walters interview.
and, it's all just such a fucking sham. and i'm not even touching tom-kat. though, i am watching oprah right now, and tim mcgraw and faith hill are cooing over each other, while oprah gushes about how in love they seem. of course, it's widely accepted within the industry that their relationship is little more than a convenient business arrangement.
are their exceptions? perhaps. reese and ryan are cute...but they're perpetually in the "rumors of a separation" stage. sjp and matthew broderick seem happy, but i'm just not sure how long he is willing to ride in the backseat. i find myself inclined to believe bill macy and felicity huffman might live happily ever after (but notice how i had to use both of their full names to make the point.)
i have nothing against the love part...if it's really there. but, since it's probably not, why put us all through the circus? and, if you still don't believe me that we're better of with our celebrities single, then just pop sheryl crow's lance-and-kids-inspired album wildflower into your ipod. you'll be so bored, you'll be begging her to deliver the next jagged little pill. and at least now, she just might.
i hate it when they're happy in love. i hate it when they're hand in hand on the cover of people, and my goodies, do i hate it when one of their stomachs is hanging out two feet in front of them, soon to be replaced with a stroller.
it's really just that they're so much more interesting when they're single...there's that allure about them. they're celebrities afterall. people who simply have transcended to an ethereal plane of recognition that affords them the minimum of privacy, and the maximum of opportunity. but to the public, they became famous for who they are (or the image they project)...whether it's the musicians we want to party with, or the movie stars we want to date, or the auteurs we want to have coffee with. in any and all cases, their fame is a result of their relationship to the public, and i think we are all lying to ourselves if we don't secretly prefer these relationships to be monogamous.
of course celebrities are just people at the end of the day, and should be afforded the same rights as everyone else, blah blah, so great. there are probably 100 million single people in the country. yet, why is it that so many of them seek out other celebrity mates like it's their job? maybe because for some of them, (nick lachey..cough), it is. when a celebrity's star starts to fall, it's always a smart decision to couple up with someone else making headlines...and even if that person isn't, the sheer novelty of two b-listers together, can propel them to a-list status.
then we are forced to watch these relationships unfold. first, there are the shy denials and no comments, followed by the fuzzy paparazzi shots from afar in the national enquirer, and then the sudden first public appearance on the red carpet, followed by the gushing on oprah and the cover story in vanity fair, and that's when the interest begins to wane (because nobody cares about a happy couple), until, of course, the rumors of a split begin to surface in much the same way, and the whole cycle unravels in reverse culminating with the barbara walters interview.
and, it's all just such a fucking sham. and i'm not even touching tom-kat. though, i am watching oprah right now, and tim mcgraw and faith hill are cooing over each other, while oprah gushes about how in love they seem. of course, it's widely accepted within the industry that their relationship is little more than a convenient business arrangement.
are their exceptions? perhaps. reese and ryan are cute...but they're perpetually in the "rumors of a separation" stage. sjp and matthew broderick seem happy, but i'm just not sure how long he is willing to ride in the backseat. i find myself inclined to believe bill macy and felicity huffman might live happily ever after (but notice how i had to use both of their full names to make the point.)
i have nothing against the love part...if it's really there. but, since it's probably not, why put us all through the circus? and, if you still don't believe me that we're better of with our celebrities single, then just pop sheryl crow's lance-and-kids-inspired album wildflower into your ipod. you'll be so bored, you'll be begging her to deliver the next jagged little pill. and at least now, she just might.
posted by mark at 4:34 PM
4 Comments:
Oh Mark, Mark, Mark.
First off, let's examine some of your language usage in this blog: "then we are forced to watch these relationships unfold."
No, no. It is our own sad obsession with celebrity that leads us to crave information on these celebrity couples. No one is forcing us to watch.
Now read this CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/06/people.brangelina.reut/index.html
American is actually obsessed with celebrity coupledom: hence the new trend of naming the couple ('Tomkat', 'Brangelina'). And why wouldn't we be? We live in a culture obsessed with love. We're the generation of 'The Bachelor' and 'Match.com'- everything that comes out of Hollywood has to have a romance in it, whether it fits or not.
And if we can't see love played out on the 'ethereal plane', how can we ever hope for it ourselves?
i stand by my sentiments 100%! we ARE forced to watch it, or at least forced to be aware of it. ok, maybe it's not on the front page of the Times, but you can't go to any newstand without all of the glossy covers staring you in your face. you can't watch the evening news without the infotainment hook, you can't sign online without their pictures plastered in your face, and you can't even watch the most serious of stories on cnn without the ticker advising us of where brangelina has turned up most recently.
you are right that all of this is a result of an american obsession with celebrity, but at the same time, we really don't have a choice in the matter. even if we wanted to ignore it, we can't.
a few things:
1) you can ignore it. just like people ignore real news, one can ignore this shit.
2) as for the obsession and do people care about celebrity breakups and why we all care about celebs best as single - i don't quite agree. i think the same drive motivates people and their desire to have celebs together/ apart/ and general fascination. some people may be drawn to the togetherness just as you're drawn to the separateness. they find it more fascinating and intriguing, project their own desires of couplehood onto this couple and wish they can mirror was appears to be so great.
3) it's all about visibility and appearances. celebs are just like normal people, except MUCH dumber, they just have more resources, access and visibility which THEY through O and other channels, project onto those who don't ignore/ tune out celeb stuff and infotainment outlets.
4) As for why they choose mates in the biz -it's their peer base. and i think that the institution of marriage and its problems are illuminated to a great extent through celebrity marriages. they exemplify the problems, pitfalls and stupidity that over 50% of the population also experiences. hence, so many people's strong desire to emulate what appears to be so good, when in actuality, it's just like their marriage.
5) all you need is love. if it's there, then in those moments, that's all that matters. whether things work or not in the end shouldn't. and i think that marriage no longer means what it did, it's more of a promise until both people don't want it to work. so why even bother? the dress and the booze, that's why.
Damn skippy the dress and the booze!
Also, supply and demand: if you took away the constant demand for news about celebrities, you would no longer have the supply.
It's like how my Ranger Rick magazines would always warn me not to buy ivory because it encouraged elephant poaching.
Post a Comment
<< Home